Dear Mr Dube,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Effects of temperature on the life history traits of Intermediate Host Snails of Fascioliasis : A Systematic Review" 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.

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.

Revision of the structure and language throughout is critical to improve this manuscript, as noted by both reviewers.

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,

María Victoria Periago

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

The submitted manuscript discusses the impact of climate change on the biological processes which affect the transmission dynamics of snail-borne diseases, especifically Fascioliasis, through a review on experimental and model studies. The reviewers agree on the relevance and importance of this study but have made some comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript and clarify some areas, therefore we suggest taking them into consideration.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The objectives are well defined and easy to understand. The study methodology is well described, in a structured way and meets the proposed objectives. All inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined, and well complemented with the figure. Given that this is an analysis of published articles, the sample size depends on the information available in the literature.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The results were well presented and well structured, although the English is very confusing, which makes interpretation difficult.

The table is quite illustrative of the results obtained from the various articles analyzed.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The results are well discussed, and well organized, presenting a great reflection on the importance of this type of studies. The conclusions are written in an organized manner and reflect the results obtained. In addition to the results obtained, limitations of the study are also presented, which adds value to the work.

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

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: To improve the quality of the manuscript, there are some issues that should be revised, namely:

Abstract

Line 26 – you say Intermediate Host Snails (IHS) – Should maintain the same criteria during the manuscript (Ex: Lines 36,37 and 38)

Background

Line 66 – liver fluke is the parasite, not the disease;

Line 71 – sporocysts, rediae (not radiae) and cercariae are intramolluscan stages of trematodes, not intramolluscan tematodes

Line 75 – Galba truncatula (also called Lymnaea truncatula)

Line 75 – temperate regions

Line 76 – Galba natalensis (also called Lymnaea natalensis) – not Lymnaea truncatula

Line 75 – Pseudosuccinea columella (also called Lymnaea columella)

Line 88 – presence of the vector snails and parasites

Material and Methods

Line 117 – You should explain why the search by Lymnaea, Galba, Pseudosuccinea and Radix. Maybe you should also search for Fossaria

Line 118 – Galba, Radix (italics)

Line 126 – Fasciola hepatica (italics)

Line 131 – If you say Lymnaea sp, must say Galba sp and Pseudosuccinea sp

Table 1. – Revise the italics; inoculated miracidia??? (page 12); Sometimes you say “x - yºC”, other "xºC - yºC" (should use the same criteria);

Line 175 – Temperature is known to "have" impact "on" IHS growth

Line 215 – Studies Stensgaard et al (???????)

225 – snail intermediate hosts – shoud be SIH

Lines 242, 247 – sometimes is Lymnaeid, other lymnaeid (it is not the only case)

Line 341 – intramolluscan stages of Fasciola hepatica

Line 374 – parasitization (????)

Line 421 – GIS (not a Geographic Information System (GIS))

References

Line 500 – [5] incomplete

Line 502 – [6] Tidman, R., et al… … (must see the recommended referencing style) You have much more cases like this.

Line 516 – [11] incomplete

Line 537 – [20] incomplete

Line 540 – [22] incomplete

Line 657 – [67] incomplete

Line 702 – [86] “Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published …” (????)

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

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: Despite being a very relevant topic, it has some limitations. It is written in a very confusing way, difficult to understand, specially at the background seccion. It is used different writing criteria throughout the manuscript, with many errors in terms of italics in the genera and species of parasites/molluscs, which requires extensive revision. There is a lot of inconsistency in the way the data is presented, and several errors in the formatting of bibliographic references.

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

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: RONALDO DE CARVALHO AUGUSTO

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

Dear Mr Dube,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Effects of temperature on the life history traits of Intermediate Host Snails of Fascioliasis : A Systematic Review' 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,

María Victoria Periago

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

The authors have addressed all of the reviewers comments and have greatly improved the manuscript. Please go over some minor issues when you proof the document for publication. For example, line 73, when you start a sentence with a species name it need to be written out "Fasciola gigantica" not "F. gigantica". Line 157, there is space missing between "Table 1," and "showed".