Dear Professor Lanza,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A Place-Based Conceptual Model (PBCM) of Neotricula aperta Habitat During Transmission of Schistosoma mekongi on Khong Island, Laos." 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.

While the reviewers thought the study was interesting, the manuscript requires substantial editing before it is suitable for publication. Please address the comments raised by the reviewers, specifically relating to the organisation of the manuscript and the details included in the discussion/conclusion.

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,

Krystyna Cwiklinski, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alvaro Acosta-Serrano

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

While the reviewers thought the study was interesting, the manuscript requires substantial editing before it is suitable for publication. Please address the comments raised by the reviewers, specifically relating to the organisation of the manuscript and the details included in the discussion/conclusion.

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: • More explanation to major components of a PLACE-BASED CONCEPTUAL MODEL (PBCM) is needed.

Reviewer #3: Most of these questions are not really relevant; the manuscript is a kind of review presenting historical data on habitat charaterization of the gastropod Neotricula aperta, the intermediate host for Schistosoma mekongi, in the Mekong River prior to construction of dams and the exploring how those can be useful for predicting distribution of this snail species and transmission of S. mekongi now that many dams have been built on this river.

Reviewer #4: The objectives of the study are not clearly concentrated. While they are indeed stated throughout the manuscript, they are not upfront and clear. This paper is a mix of a long literature review, with very little of the PBCM used/discussed. Moreover, the actual structure of the PBCM is missing. Figure 6 is not adequate for discussing this, as the model is a core component of the manuscript. The methods section merely references two papers describing the methods, but more details need to be included here.

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: the analysis presented match the analysis plan

the results clearly and completely presented

Reviewer #3: Results are clearly presented and Images and Tables are clear and illustrative.

Reviewer #4: While the PBCM can enhance the literature review and updated conditions, it just isn’t integrated well throughout the manuscript. For example, it would be better if the authors integrated it into more of the review/modeling scenarios starting around line 131. Furthermore, much of this section (which I presume is the Results section) needs to have some of it moved to the introduction instead. Lines 111 – 131 should be in the intro, as it motivates a lot of the study.

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

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

Reviewer #2: Compare between using maxent model and a PLACE-BASED CONCEPTUAL MODEL (PBCM) in similar studies.

Reviewer #3: Conclusions are supported by data and the modelling suggested could play an important role for public health in the area.

Reviewer #4: While I think the manuscript needs significant reorganization, I do believe that the manuscript has valuable conclusions and can be improved to be publication worthy. I would suggest the authors stop including new review material in the conclusions, such as the information beginning on line 384. There is far too much new information and it feels like an aside.

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

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: I have marked changes on the ms. Sci. names cannot be used as adjectives they are proper nouns

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I have only very minor comments.

Several species or genera names are not italicized (eg lines 46, 211, 236, 331, 343 and most in the reference list)

Line 305: agal should be algal

Sentence line 291-292: add reference.

Sometimes authors use “Schistosoma vectors” and sometimes “Schistosome vector”; Schistosoma is a genus name and should be in italics, while Schistosome is not and it should not be capitalized (see eg line 377-380).

End of line 405: L anza should be Lanza

Figure 6, left box in the third row of boxes: “Figures 1-6” should be “Figures 1-4” ?

Reviewer #4: Most of my suggestions are major suggestions, not minor. I have coalesced them below.

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

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: The authors might want to consider a mention of the changes is naturally occurring fish predators of the snails with changing conditions. Just a suggestion.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents historical data on habitat characteristics for Neotricula aperta during transmission of Schistosoma mekongi in the Mekong River at Khong Island prior to dam projects. The manuscript then presents a detailed review of the effects of dams on various aspects of the river ecology and the discussion address the potential application of the Place-Based Conceptual Model (PBCM). The manuscript is well-written and addresses an interesting approach to model ecological data.

Reviewer #4: a. Overall, I believe this manuscript has valuable information, and I would like to see it published in the future. The authors have done an excellent job of combing through the literature and combining it with historical data to speak on the environmental conditions and consequences of the area. However, the manuscript suffers from an organization problem, in my opinion. Far too much of motivating information is not in the intro, the PBCM model is not described enough, and too much details in the intro and discussion that are irrelevant to the points the authors are making. For example, the introduction does not set up the reader to understand the value of the PBCM or the current conditions. It would be good if Lines 68 – 72 and 111 – 131 be moved to the intro, for example.

b. The review portion of the article needs to be cut and focused significantly. It goes on far too long. I would suggest the authors ask themselves if individual paragraphs support the overall goal of the paper, or if they are including information just to include it. If the authors do not want to get rid of these details, consider instead making an expanded review, with the focus being the review, not the PBCM. For example, it is unclear to me if the reader even needs to know any of the information in lines 155 – 168.

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

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: Yes: Jay R. Stauffer Jr.

Reviewer #2: Yes: mohamed kamel

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: PNTD-D-23-00131 (1)jrs.pdf

Dear Professor Lanza,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A Place-Based Conceptual Model (PBCM) of Neotricula aperta /Schistosoma mekongi habitat before and after dam construction in the Lower Mekong River." 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. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The authors have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. A few minor corrections are now required before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all 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.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. 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,

Krystyna Cwiklinski, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Álvaro Acosta-Serrano

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

The authors have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. A few minor corrections are now required before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

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: Paper meets all of the above criteria and should be published with minor revisions.

Reviewer #3: Yes

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

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: yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

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

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 -- may emphasize how and why these models should be applied to other sysrtems.

Reviewer #3: 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: A few minor corrections needed. Many are highlighted in attached ms. Scientific names cannot be used as adjectives -- they are proper nouns.

Reviewer #3: Much improved

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

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: Excellent study. May want to emphasiz its usefullness to other species and systems.

Reviewer #3: I have carefully read the manuscript and have no further comments. I only found a few minor typos which probably will be detected during the type setting.

Line 24: Schistosoma should be in italics.

Line 55: Schistosome should be schistosome

Line 165: N. aperta should be in italics

Line 203: Stenothra should be Stenothyra and sp. should not be in italics

Line 394: agal should be algal

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

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: Yes: Jay R Stauffer, Jr.

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

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-23-00131_R1_reviewer.pdf

Dear Professor Lanza,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A Place-Based Conceptual Model (PBCM) of Neotricula aperta /Schistosoma mekongi habitat before and after dam construction in the Lower Mekong River.' 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,

Krystyna Cwiklinski, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Álvaro Acosta-Serrano

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

The authors have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. The manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLoS NTD.