https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8711-9589
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 7, 2022 |
|---|
|
Dear Miss Pescarini, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya viral circulation and hospitalization rates in Brazil from 2014 to 2019: an ecological study.' 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, Nigel Beebe, PhD Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Nigel Beebe 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: Methods were very adequately describe and the study design excellent. Sample size is enormous, providing very high power to the anaklyses. There are no ethical concerns noted. Reviewer #2: In the manuscript, the objective of the study is clearly established and it is hypothesized that arboviruses contribute indirectly to hospitalizations and deaths through the decompensation of pre-existing comorbidities. The ecological approach of the study on information on arboviruses (dengue, chikungunya and zika) in all geographic units of Brazil (municipalities and states) is adequate to answer the research question. The Bayesian model is applied for the analysis of this information and the relative risk is used as a measure of association. The research team adequately restricts the period of analysis for Chikungunya and Zika, considering the epidemiology of these arboviruses in Brazil The study was approved by an ethics committee ********** 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: Excellent job of presenting results and the figures are reflective and summarize the results. Reviewer #2: The results are presented in main and supplementary tables due to the large amount of information that the study team wanted to present. The graphics are repeated, it is suggested to consider the ones with the best resolution ********** 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: Although the base hypothesis was not supported by the analyses performed, this paper provides exceptionally valuable insights into medical consequences in an are with intense arbovirus transmission. Reviewer #2: The conclusions fit the results. The limitations are characteristic of this type of study approach and are adequately mentioned in the manuscript, establishing the need for future studies on this topic. ********** 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: The paper is very well written and I have not suggestions to improve it other than one strange capitalized "Endocrine". 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: I consider this an outstanding manuscript that investigated the intriguing hypothesis that endemic arbovirus infections would lead to greater all cause morbidity from such disorders as diabetes. Despite the fact that the hypothesis was not supported by the analyses, this remains and excellent and valuable contribution. Reviewer #2: The co-circulation of arboviruses is a public health problem that produces a significant economic burden in endemic countries such as Brazil. The hypothesis raised by the researchers continues to be the focus of discussion and this study with an ecological approach provides initial evidence and serves as a guide for future studies with an individual approach. ********** 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 Miss Pescarini, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya viral circulation and hospitalization rates in Brazil from 2014 to 2019: an ecological study.," 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 .