Dear Dr Oakley,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Seroprevalence and risk factors for Q Fever and Rift Valley Fever in pastoralists and their livestock in Afar, Ethiopia: A One Health approach" 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.

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,

Simon Rayner

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Justin Remais

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-> objectives yes, hypothesis no.

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-> no. Study design, in pariclar sampling design could use some improvement.

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-> What is not comptelety clear is why a different number of household from each study site (the 5 sites) were sampled. Further comments within the point by point revisions document (attached word file).

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-> sample size was calculated suing appripriate tools, however clustering of the data (region-study site-hoseholds- humans/livestock) should have been considered. (More on this in the attached point by point revision.)

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-> Yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

-> 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-> in the analysis plan more detailed info on the so called risk factors should have been provided.

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? (More on this in the attached point by point revision.)

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

-> 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-> mostly yes. There are conclusion on the stronger collaboration of human and animal sectors and while these are generell recommendations, the study it self and the data do not suggest anything on One Health governence level.

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-> No, this is missing and should be added.

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-> Yes.

-Is public health relevance addressed?

-> 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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: Well written and timely manuscript.

Good use of One Health approach.

Good evidence and argument for tailoring epidemiological services to nomadic people.

Fills in some gaps in understudied RVFV-endemic region.

Some minor corrections suggested here:

Line 69 & throughout - use serial commas (i.e., should be “… humans, animals, and their environment …”)

Line 71 & throughout - Q fever (not Q fever)

Line 72 & throughout - Rift Valley fever (not Fever)

Line 73 - RVFV is also under-reported due to poor infrastructure, poor public education/engagement, and severe economic impact from OIE/WOAH trade bans.

Line 89 - clarify “animals”; redundant given rest of sentence?

Line 90 - through mosquitoes and other hematophagous arthropods

Line 91 - “RVF” should be “RVFV” — check throughout for appropriate use of RVF vs RVFV.

Line 93 - establish the use of RVFV throughout instead of “RVF virus”

Line 103 - should be “… migrating and searching for …”

Line 104 & throughout - suggest use either mobile or nomadic, not both; or clarify the terms

Line 101 & throughout - no need to capitalize compass directions

Line 107-111 — very good; should link anticipated results from statement in line 112-113 with suggested action to accomplish statement in line 107-111.

Line 122 - were should be was

Line 123 - should be “… representing five of the seven woredas, I.e., Amibara, Awash, …”

Line 127 - remove comma

Line 161 - should be “manufacturer’s”

Line 163 - should be “reported”

Line 182 - “was” should be “were”

Line 303 - separated by … what?

Line 324 - should be “… aged ≥49 years with C. burnetii seropositivity.”

Line 355 - Aedes should be italicized

Line 366 & throughout - be consistent with capitalization of Woredas

Line 377 - change “is” to “could be”

Line 392 - change “lower” to “shorter”

Line 399 - no comma after “drought”

Line 553 - missing authors on Ref #32

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Please refere to the line by line revision document (word file) sugegstion improvement of the manuscript.

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

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

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Seroprevalence of C burnetii and RVF in Ethiopia.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Line by line revisions.docx

Dear Dr Oakley,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Seroprevalence and risk factors for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in pastoralists and their livestock in Afar, Ethiopia: A One Health approach" 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 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,

Simon Rayner

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Justin Remais

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thank you to the authors for their accomplished efforts in revising their manuscript accoding to reviewer guidance givven. I blieve the mansucript has improved technically, scientifically and in readability. Thank you also fo providing detailed explanation on where amanemends weren´t possible authors hae agrumented otherwise. This helped to understand the justufucation for sthe study conducted.

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

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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 #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

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: Q fever and RVF seroprevalence in Ethiopia.docx

Dear Dr Oakley,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Seroprevalence and risk factors for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in pastoralists and their livestock in Afar, Ethiopia: A One Health approach' 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,

Simon Rayner

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Justin Remais

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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