Peer Review History
Original SubmissionAugust 28, 2020 |
---|
Dear Dr. Hamer, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Global patterns of aegyptism without arbovirus" 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. 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, Mariangela Bonizzoni Associate Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Pedro Vasconcelos Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************** 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: See my overall review in the general comments Reviewer #2: Methods are appropriate. -------------------- 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: See my overall review in the general comments Reviewer #2: Results are clear. -------------------- 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: See my overall review in the general comments Reviewer #2: Yes. -------------------- 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: See my overall review in the general comments Reviewer #2: Minor Revision. -------------------- 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: This paper describes a modeling analysis of the differential between projected Ae aegypti populations and a model of the likelihood of dengue transmission in an attempt to investgate why some areas with the vector lack dengue. This is an important topic as the primary vector of dengue, Ae aegypti, is spreading to new areas. In particular, parts of the southwestern United States including urban areas in California and Arizona, have recently been infested with this mosquito. And it appears as though the populations are well established in those areas. In addition, dengue is noticeable by its absence in these areas. The issue I have with this work is that it really is based on modeling projections that were conducted five to six years ago. Indeed the models were based on input up to 2015, and so are somewhat dated. I was hoping that the paper would include a benchtop exercise / literature review of the known and current areas with both vector and dengue transmission. The Aedes model makes some embarrassing whiffs, showing Ae. aegypti widespread across northern Australia (it is limited to coastal northern Queensland), and missing the populations in the southwestern United States. The dengue model is likewise based on projections, with dengue probable in much of the SE USA despite a paucity of transmission there. What are we to make of a study that is the product of 2 less than perfect models? Is it error squared? It certainly does not reflect the title of “Global patterns…” that indicate real distributional data. So I think that you need to describe this work as a modeling exercise, an explorative dive into potential links between vector, virus and the environment. I also feel that the paper needs more thorough discussion of reasons why dengue may not occur in areas where Ae. aegypti does. This would be a function of, as you did point out, the development and wealth of the population such that they have access to piped water, window screening and air conditioning. This of course is brought out in the Reiter 2003 publication that you did cite but perhaps a brief discussion of the role that Ae. aegypti as an indoor mosquito has in urban dengue transmission. Other aspects include herd immunity, access to endemic cases, insecticide resistance. Other aspects that you should discuss is that dengue occurs in areas where there are no Ae. aegypti, see outbreaks in southeast China and Japan that have been vectored by Ae. albopictus. A few other suggestions: 1. The colours/shades on the map do not work well. I have a very hard time seeing the pale yellow. I suggest seeking the following website: (https://colorbrewer2.org/#type=sequential&scheme=BuGn&n=3). And revising. 2. Please state what sort of populations, mosquito or human, when used. Reviewer #2: Olson et al. present results on development of a global map detailing probability estimates of Aedes aegypti occurrence and likelihood for dengue transmission. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and presents results that should be of interest to local/regional health authorities as they look to control arbovirus transmission. I only have some minor comments for the authors to consider: Lines 78-81: these lines highlight a general pattern in the manuscript to alternate between the use of “dengue” and “DEN” – I’d suggest picking one and being consistent. Lines 138-143: it seems important to justify up front why the choice was made to combine monthly information on temperature and precipitation into annual mean temperatures and cumulative rainfall. This seems to be an overly simplistic approach that ignores the known effects on basic biology and population dynamics, e.g., maximum/minimum temperatures and timing and amounts of rainfall. As the authors indicate (lines 255-264) that choice likely impacted the predictability of their results. -------------------- 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 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 |
Revision 1 |
Dear Dr. Hamer, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Global patterns of aegyptism without arbovirus' 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, Mariangela Bonizzoni Associate Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Pedro Vasconcelos Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************************************************** p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none 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: Approoriate Reviewer #2: (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: Thanks for improving the map Reviewer #2: (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: Yes, and thanks for attending to my suggestions. Reviewer #2: (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: fine Reviewer #2: (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: Most of my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Reviewer #2: The author's have responded appropriately to my previous comments and I support publication of the revised manuscript. ********** 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 |
Formally Accepted |
Dear Dr. Hamer, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Global patterns of aegyptism without arbovirus," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. 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 scientific or type-setting 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. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. 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. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards, Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
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 .