https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1129-0440
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 25, 2022 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Tack, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Health itinerary related survival of children under-five with severe malaria or bloodstream infection, DR Congo' 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, Paul O. Mireji, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Ana LTO Nascimento Section 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: N/A Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study are clearly articulated where the authors assessed the health itinerary of children under-five with severe febrile illness and delaying factors related to healthcare seeking. The study design is appropriate and hase adhered to the STROBE guidelines fro this observational study. Ethical and regulatory requirements have been met. ********** 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: N/A Reviewer #2: Care has been taken by the authors to ensure image clarity. ********** 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: N/A Reviewer #2: The study presents a clear conclusion with evidence supporting health education and health system reforms for improved recognition of danger signs and earlier referral of children under-five with severe febrile illness by frontline healthcare workers. ********** 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: N/A I actually thought the data was presented very well and with some interesting in and unique graphics that help in comprehension. Reviewer #2: Minor modifications have been indicated in the annotated MS. ********** 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 paper was very well written and the analysis solid. I only had 2 background questions to help understand the context of the study: 1) what was the covid prevalence (or general situation) in the area given that the study occured during the pandemic; and 2) can you please provide a brief description of the community health services in the area as context for care seeking. Also: Line 462 had a typo. it should be 'fatal risk OF fatal healthcare.... Reviewer #2: (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
|
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr. Tack, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Health itinerary related survival of children under-five with severe malaria or bloodstream infection, DR Congo," 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 .