Dear Mrs Noguera Zayas,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The dual burden of animal and human zoonoses: a systematic review" 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.

Your manuscript was evaluated by 3 reviewers and all required revisions prior to being acceptable for publication. Please review and respond to all the reviewer comments. The two most significant revisions to address are:

1) Clarification of some of the sampling and statistical techniques you used.

2) Figure 2 is of very poor quality and essentially unreadable - please replace this with a figure of higher quality for your re-submission.

There are also a number of items that require correction and editing (for example, Viet Nam vs Vietnam for consistency).

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,

Richard A. Bowen

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Your manuscript was evaluated by 3 reviewers and all thought it was generally a valuable contribution, but required some revisions prior to being acceptable for publication. Please review and respond to all the reviewer comments. Your manuscript has been judged to require MAJOR REVISIONS. The two most significant revisions to address are:

1) Clarification of some of the sampling and statistical techniques you used.

2) Figure 2 is of very poor quality and essentially unreadable - please replace this with a figure of higher quality for your re-submission.

There are also a number of small and easy to correct items that require editing (for example, Viet Nam vs Vietnam for consistency).

We look forward to evaluating a revised version of this manuscript.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes.

Reviewer #3: -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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

No. I think statistical methods needs more clarification.

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

No

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes.

Reviewer #3: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

No. the used methods for pooling data is not clear. heterogenicity methods and results of them is not reported.

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

Tables are complex with some undefined headers.

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

The quality of figures was too low and I was unable too assess them.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes.

Reviewer #3: Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

yes

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I suggest improving the quality of the figures, especially figure 2.

Reviewer #3: Dear editor

Hi

The topic of this study is attractive and I think it would be improve using reviewers comment. I recommended major revision to revise the statistical methods and results.

Best

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

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 study presents the first systematic review that estimates the dual burden of zoonoses in humans and domestic animals based on studies available worldwide. This is an interesting study, which provides important information for the prioritization of the control and prevention of zoonotic diseases. Please see below my comments and suggestions.

ABSTRACT

Lines 25-27: I suggest rephrasing this sentence as it is currently unclear whether the ALE are for rabies and echinococcosis only.

INTRODUCTION

Line 63: I suggest adding a definition of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY).

METHODS

Line 91: Did you include studies written in a language other than English?

I am concerned that your search strategy missed relevant studies:

- Did you consider doing a reference list search of studies included for full-text review or in the review for potential additional studies?

- To what extent do you think using the term “zoonoses” rather than the actual zoonotic disease names in your literature search (i.e., rabies, echinococcosis, cysticercosis, brucellosis, leptospirosis, etc.), decreased the number of studies identified?

RESULTS

Line 160: Replace “e.g.” with “for example”.

DISCUSSION

While it is clear why the three studies already including zDALY estimates were excluded from the actual review, it would have been relevant to include them in the discussion section, and discuss their results more extensively (e.g., include them in an overall total summed up estimate of zDALY, etc.).

Line 293: You mention “the lack of availability of datasets following the FAIR principles did not allow us to obtain the confidence intervals of our choice”; did you try contacting the corresponding authors of these studies to obtain the data? Same question for the studies that did not share their code.

Line 314: Which determinant of human health?

OTHER

The use of “Vietnam” or “Viet Nam” should be consistent throughout the manuscript.

Please check the consistency in the references – sometimes they are cited after the sentence (e.g., “.[8]” instead of “[8].”).

Abbreviations should be defined only once at first use, and not multiple times throughout the manuscript (e.g., ALE and zDALY). Additionally, all abbreviations should be defined (e.g., LIC and LMIC are not).

Reviewer #2: The article presents a systematic review that addresses an innovative theme within the concept of One Health. The review was carried out with adequate methodological rigor.

Reviewer #3: Dear author

thanks for your great study. I think you chose great topic, but methods and results section needs more clarification; you didn't explain well about statistical methods (pooling the results method, heterogenicity assessment method, ...) and I think tables are complex, please see my comments in you article PDF.

your claim in PRISMA checklist was not according pages of PDF.

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

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, we recommend that you deposit your 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: PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-22-00699.pdf

Dear Mrs Noguera Zayas,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The dual burden of animal and human zoonoses: a systematic review' 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,

Richard A. Bowen

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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