Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionApril 17, 2025 |
|---|
|
PCOMPBIOL-D-25-00773 Linking multiple serological assays to infer dengue virus infections from paired samples using mixture models PLOS Computational Biology Dear Dr. Hamins-Puertolas, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Sep 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: * A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below. * A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. * An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Moritz Kraemer, DPhil Academic Editor PLOS Computational Biology Roger Kouyos Section Editor PLOS Computational Biology Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS Computational Biology. The reviewers recommended minor revisions -- see their comments attached to this email. Journal Requirements: 1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full. At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Marco Hamins-Puertolas, Darunee Buddhari, Henrik Salje, Angkana T. Huang, Taweewun Hunsawong, Derek A.T. Cummings, Stefan Fernandez, Aaron Farmer, Surachai Kaewhiran, Direk Khampaen, Anon Srikiatkhachorn, Sopon Iamsirithaworn, Adam Waickman, Stephen J. Thomas, Timothy Endy, Alan L. Rothman, Kathryn B. Anderson, and Isabel Rodriguez-Barraquer. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form. The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions 2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019. 3) Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150-200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission 4) We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©, ®, or TM (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Therefore please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including: - TM on page: 31. 5) Thank you for including an Ethics Statement for your study. Please include: i) A statement that formal consent was obtained (must state whether verbal/written) OR the reason consent was not obtained (e.g. anonymity). NOTE: If child participants, the statement must declare that formal consent was obtained from the parent/guardian.]. 6) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures 7) We notice that your supplementary Figures, Tables, and information are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. 8) Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well. Currently, "Military Infectious Disease Research Program (MIDRP)" is missing from the Funding Information tab. 9) Please provide a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Authors: Please note that one of the reviews is uploaded as an attachment. Reviewer #1: The review is uploaded as an attachment Reviewer #2: The authors present a method to jointly analyse multiple serological assays from paired samples. They use mixture models, the application of which is layed out in the manuscript. They show that the use of additional assays improves the accuracy of infection detection. The manuscript is well written, the concepts are well explained, and the approach is well chosen and validated. I only have some minor comments that would help increase the clarity of the manuscript and future use of the methods proposed. The authors discuss some extensions to their framework, including adding baseline titers and the time since symptom onset as covariates. It would be helpful for future applications if the authors would describe the methodology used in these additional steps more explicitly. Similarly, the simulation of the synthetic data is performed using the serosim package. It would be helpful if, in addition to the parameter used (table S1) the model used for the generation of the data was given (in main of SM). In particular, it was not clear to me how the immune history was modelled. Lastly, the model fitting approach is very briefly described. What algorithm was used here? This part would benefit from a bit more details. ********** Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Victoria Cox Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] Figure resubmission: While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr Hamins-Puertolas, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Linking multiple serological assays to infer dengue virus infections from paired samples using mixture models' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. Best regards, Roger Dimitri Kouyos Section Editor PLOS Computational Biology Roger Kouyos Section Editor PLOS Computational Biology *********************************************************** Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Authors: Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment. Reviewer #1: The authors have revised the manuscript based on the suggestions made in the reviews. The clarity around the different models has been improved. The manuscript reads well and as I wrote in the original review, it is interesting and important work. Very minor spot: on line 230 in the tracked changes version, there is a double 'AA'. Reviewer #2: All comments were well addressed. ********** Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: None ********** PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Victoria Cox Reviewer #2: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PCOMPBIOL-D-25-00773R1 Linking multiple serological assays to infer dengue virus infections from paired samples using mixture models Dear Dr Hamins-Puertolas, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. For Research, Software, and Methods articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work! With kind regards, Zsofia Freund PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .