https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4642-789X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 5, 2022 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Amoako, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Beliefs, attitudes and practices towards scabies in central Ghana" 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. The reviewers felt that this manuscript is of general public health importance as it is the first study to attempt to assess beliefs, attitudes and practices towards scabies in Ghana. The paper is also of interest as it indicated that some people seemed unaware that treatment for scabies is free under the national health insurance scheme in Ghana which highlights the need for educational programmes to promote the availability of free and effective treatment for persons with health insurance. There are some significant concerns, however, regarding the methodology and conclusions from the results. These are outlined in detail by reviewer number 2 and each of these points need to be addressed prior to any re-submission. 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, Michele Murdoch Guest Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************** Thank you to the authors for submitting this manuscript, which is of general public health importance as it is the first study to attempt to assess beliefs, attitudes and practices towards scabies in Ghana. The paper is also of interest as it indicated that some people seemed unaware that treatment for scabies is free under the national health insurance scheme in Ghana which highlights the need for educational programmes to promote the availability of free and effective treatment for persons with health insurance. There are some significant concerns, however, regarding the methodology and conclusions from the results. These are outlined in detail by reviewer number 2 and each of these points need to be addressed prior to any re-submission. Additional minor comment: Fig 4. Does this reflect the data from only the scabies group? If so, please amend the legend title accordingly. 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: an excellent and relevant study which was well conducted Reviewer #2: Not clear how the sample size was reached and how the actual recruitments took place Reviewer #3: The objective of the study is clearly articulated though there is no hypothesis stated. The study design is appropriate for the objective. There are no ethical concerns regarding this study. -------------------- 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: well analysed and presented Reviewer #2: No comment Reviewer #3: The analysis presented corresponds to the analysis plan and the results are clearly and completely presented and the Figures 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: Conclusions are supported and there are recommendations stemming from this work Reviewer #2: I do not think the conclusions are fair reflection of the findings. Details in the attachment Reviewer #3: The conclusions support data represented and the limitations are mentioned. The data and its usefulness understanding the topic are discussed as well as its public health relevance in development of community control programs and recommendation for enhancement of health education in Ghana and availability of scabies treatment by the Government -------------------- 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: Accept Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Overall, the paper is well written and there are few grammatical edits to be made in addition to the details of the clinical diagnostic criteria of scabies in this study. -------------------- 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: An important study on a common and distressing condition in communities. Understanding underlying belief systems and providing insights into the cause is key to encouraging earlier presentation and improving the quality of life of those affected Reviewer #2: Possible bias in the interpretation of the result where the authors have a message they want to convey and totally disregard the data at their disposal but follow faint leads to their conclusions Reviewer #3: This paper reports on the Beliefs, attitudes, and practices towards scabies in central Ghana. It presents important findings that are relevant in understanding the problem in the community and how to tackle them to ensure scabies control. The discussion is relevant and extensive and covers the topic appropriately. -------------------- 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: Anisa Mosam 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
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Yaw, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Beliefs, attitudes and practices towards scabies in central Ghana' 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, Michele Murdoch Guest Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz 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: This is a revised version which is much improved after all the reviewers queries were satisfactorily answered. Reviewer #2: This is well outlined in the article ********** 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: This is a revised version which is much improved after all the reviewers queries were satisfactorily answered. Reviewer #2: 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: This is a revised version which is much improved after all the reviewers queries were satisfactorily answered. 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: Accept Reviewer #2: Accept ********** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Accept ********** 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: Anisa Mosam Reviewer #2: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Amoako, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Beliefs, attitudes and practices towards scabies in central Ghana," 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 .