Dear Ms Douchet,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Climate-driven models of leptospirosis dynamics in tropical islands from three oceanic basins" 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.

Please read carefully the comments of the reviewers and address each one of them.

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,

Mabel Carabali, M.D., M.Sc., Ph.D.,

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dileepa Ediriweera

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Please read carefully the comments of the reviewers and address each one of them.

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: The selected methods are sufficient to support the results.

Reviewer #2: Table 1. Check the Monthly temperature of Guadeloupe: “3.226.8±1.4”, is a typing error? Also, subscripts are exchanged. “a” should be monthly precipitation and monthly temperature, whereas “b” should be the population description.

Line 165: if median is reported and used for time series analysis, why the authors reported only the “mean” in table 1, maybe is better report both.

Line 173: link has an error. Please replaced.

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

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: The results are impressive and are supported by the data.

Reviewer #2: Lines 231-232: why if Futuna is one of the islands with the highest incidence it is shown as SM and not in the main manuscript... If the manuscript is about 7 islands, why show the results of only 4?

Line 233: this should be supplementary material 3. Please reorder according as they appear in the manuscript.

Line 235: this is statistically different to the 2012 or 2014? the difference is 1 per 100,000 approx. as to say "the highest peaks".

Fig 3. I think it is important to include Futuna in this figure, even if the results are not as expected. Thus, in line 268-269 it is not necessary to refer to the supplementary material, but to the same figure discussed in the paragraph.

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

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: The conclusions can be improved by pointing out the main findings of the present study and indicating points for future research.

Reviewer #2: Lines 418-423: discuss further the implications of these factors, as was done for social factors in lines 424-429.

Lines 435-437: the wording seems to refer to the same study, but two are cited (30 and 31).

I suggest reinforcing the conclusion, it is implied that the model is not useful. recommendations for the use of the model? who should use it? researchers, decision makers? health personnel? etc.

Lines 450-451: any recommendations on the use of this model? The purpose of generating them is to prevent outbreaks? how should the social, geographic, climatic conditions mentioned be interpreted?

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

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: Line 76: “from week to months”. From one week, or from weeks. Please edit.

Lines 89-90 how much is this influence? Please add some figures.

Line 109 poorly documented or notifiable. Please clarify.

Lines 110-111: add some reference to support this statement.

Line 274. please check and reorder all the supplementary material.

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

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: (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: Yes: Terencio Rebello de Aguiar Junior

Reviewer #2: 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.

Dear Ms Douchet,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Climate-driven models of leptospirosis dynamics in tropical islands from three oceanic basins' 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,

Dileepa Ediriweera

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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