PCOMPBIOL-D-25-01334

A Game Theoretic Treatment of Contagion in Trade Networks

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. McAlister,

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 60 days Oct 25 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,

Christian Hilbe

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Benjamin Althouse

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Additional Editor Comments :

The two reviewers both agree that the paper is well motivated, and that in general, the paper is technically sound.

However, Reviewer #2 also argues that the paper is perhaps more abstract than typical articles published in PLoS Computational Biology, and that non-mathematicians will find it difficult to follow this article.

Based on my own reading, I agree with this assessment. For many of the variables introduced in this paper, it would be useful to get some interpretations of what these variables could refer to in the specific application the authors have in mind. As such, the paper seems to be written for a more math-oriented journal, and the authors might want to discuss whether PLoS Computational Biology is really the best fit for their work.

Having said that, both reviewers make a number of very constructive suggestions on how to improve the paper. If the authors can address all of those, the paper may also become suitable for PLoS Computational Biology.

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: John S. McAlister, Jesse L Brunner, Danielle J Galvin, and Nina H Fefferman. 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) Your manuscript is missing the following section: Methods.  Please ensure all required sections are present and in the correct order. Make sure section heading levels are clearly indicated in the manuscript text, and limit sub-sections to 3 heading levels. An outline of the required sections can be consulted in our submission guidelines here:

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission 

5) Please upload all the main figures as separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:  

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures  

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures#loc-file-requirements  

6) The file inventory includes two files for Figures 5. We would recommend either combining these into a single Figure 5.tiff file with separate internal panels, or renumbering them as individual figures, as we are not able to publish multiple components of a single figure as separate files

7) We notice that your supplementary information is 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) Thank you for stating "All the data in this manuscript was synthetically generated by the model using the code found in the repository https://github.com/feffermanlab/730 JSM_2024_WildlifeTradeNetworks." This link reaches a 404 error page. Please update the link provided in the online submission form to "https://github.com/feffermanlab/JSM_2024_WildlifeTradeNetworks."

9) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Note: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note that two reviews are uploaded as attachments.

Reviewer #1: Please see the uploaded attachment

Reviewer #2: My comments are given in a separate pdf attachment that I have uploaded

**********

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: No

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, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PLOS_Computational_Biology (2).pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PCB-Mcalister.pdf

PCOMPBIOL-D-25-01334R1

A Game Theoretic Treatment of Contagion in Trade Networks

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. McAlister,

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 by Feb 10 2026 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,

Christian Hilbe

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Benjamin Althouse

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript has been evaluated by the same two reviewers who have already handled the original submission. Both reviewers agree that the authors have taken their suggestions into account, and Reviewer #1 suggests acceptance (highlighting a smaller issue that the authors still need to resolve). Reviewer #2 argues that the paper is technically sound and interesting; however, PLoS Computational Biology might not be the optimal venue.

Based on my own reading, I understand this reviewer's point. Articles in PLoS Computational Biology typically have a strong computational component, whereas the strengths of this article lie in its mathematical analysis.

I agree that non-mathematicians will find this article more difficult to understand than mathematicians. But I do believe the authors make a good effort to explain the objects they work with, and that PLoS Computational Biology can serve as a home for articles with a more mathematical audience (if the biological implications are clear, and if computational questions are discussed). Those requirements are met.

Overall, I think that this article still falls within the scope of articles published in PLoS Computational Biology, and hence I lean towards accepting the paper. In this case, I would opt for "Minor revisions", to give the authors a chance to address the remaining minor issues.

Journal Requirements:

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. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Minor comment: The naive risk is used as an upper bound for the probability of infection at some node. Of course this is intuitive since we expect infections to be positively correlated rather than negatively correlated, but it's not immediately obvious mathematically why it would be an upper bound. If you don't want to justify this mathematically, I would state it only as a non-rigorous heuristic, or else remove it entirely.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the issues raised by both reviewers and have corrected the mistakes/typos of the previous version. Changes have been made to specifically address the issues raised by me in my previous report. This has led to some improvement, but the structure and presentation style of the paper has remained largely unchanged.

As I mentioned in my first report, the overall message is interesting and the paper seems to be technically sound. However, I am still quite skeptical about the suitability of the paper for PCB. This is not meant to detract from the mathematical results (section 2-3) but is based on my opinion that PCB is not the most appropriate journal for dissemination of these results that are primarily mathematical in nature with minimal application of computational methods. However, I will defer to the editor’s judgement on this matter.

Additional minor comments

1. L130-131: If ‘i’ is the focal player (consumer) and j is the seller, then shouldn’t line 130 read as, “…the benefit of the player ‘j’ is given b_ji…” The statement can perhaps be framed in a different way to enhance clarity….. “The cost of such an interaction for the focal player ‘i’ is given by c_i,j(x_i,x_j) when ‘i’ buys a good from an upstream ‘j’ player; and the benefit for the seller j is given by b_j,i(x_i,x_j).”

2. L248-250 has been written in red and then crossed out. Why?

3. L446-450: I did not understand the meaning of the statement in line 449 that says “..the intrinsic benefit is not measured in a qualitative measure“enjoyment”…….” I thought that the intrinsic benefit is being quantified through the strategy (x_i) of the focal player and her infection status (I_i).

4. L479 should read: “…and the other two buy from both s1 and s2 evenly.”

**********

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: No

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, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

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

Dear Mr McAlister,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A Game Theoretic Treatment of Contagion in Trade Networks' 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,

Christian Hilbe

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Benjamin Althouse

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

The authors have addressed all the remaining small remarks satisfactorily.

This is a good paper, and it is appropriate for PLoS Computational Biology.