Dear Dr Elnaiem,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Outdoor Residual Insecticide Spraying, a New Approach for the Control of the Exophilic Vectors of Human Visceral Leishmaniasis: Phlebotomus orientalis in East Africa" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Dear colleagues,

thank you for submitting your work for publication in PLoS NTD. As you will see, the reviews are generally favourable, but a revision of the manuscript will be needed.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Joachim Clos

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shan Lv

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Dear colleagues,

thank you for submitting your work for publication in PLoS NTD. As you will see, the reviews are generally favourable, but a revision of the manuscript will be needed.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? YES

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? YES

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? YES

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? Limited but appropriate for preliminery studies

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? I believe so but am no expert in statistical methods

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? NONE

Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study are clearly articulated and the study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives. The number and size of clusters in treated and control groups are sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested. A correct statistical analysis has been used to support conclusions. The type of study did not involve major ethical or regulatory requirements

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Dont Know - seems sound methods were applied

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? YES BUT REQUIRE REVISION

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? REQUIRE WORK

Reviewer #2: Results are presented very clearly with the sufficient number of tables, images and graphs

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? YES

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? REQUIRE CLARIFICATION

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? YES

-Is public health relevance addressed? YES

Reviewer #2: The conclusions were supported by data and a few limitations associated with sand fly biology (Ph. orientalis) were pointed out. Treatment efficacy and cost analysis were made addressing the public health relevance of controlling visceral leishmaniasis in the Sudan, and in East Africa in general

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: My comments inserted directly in the annotated PDF attached. Please share with Authors

Reviewer #2: The report is very well written and I have no minor modifications to suggest

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: Sand fly control is a topic rarely addressed in the literature and even more rarely is it attempted in any meaningful and/or experimental approach. This group has performed the study under the most difficult conditions in the middle of nowhere in Sudan. They present clear results with applicable suggestions. While many questions remain, it is a simple and easily applicable inexpensive approach that utilized existing reed fences as natural obstacles. Sand flies tend to surmount such obstacles by hopping on them, thereby, exposing themselves to insecticide. Certainly worth publishing and expounding upon.

Reviewer #2: Despite the use of traditional methodology of sand fly control (type of insecticide, pre- and post-tretament evaluation based on sand fly counts) this report can be considered very innovative in the context of an exophilic behaviour of flying insects proven to transmit human pathogens.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

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

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you 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. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: P orientalis control.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.doc

Dear Dr Elnaiem,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Outdoor Residual Insecticide Spraying (ODRS), a New Approach for the Control of the Exophilic Vectors of Human Visceral Leishmaniasis: Phlebotomus orientalis in East Africa' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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 Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Joachim Clos

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shan Lv

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript in which you addressed the points raised by the reviewers over the original submission.