https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6000-0422
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2024 |
|---|
|
PNTD-D-24-01315Title Longitudinal Observational (single cohort) Study on the Causes of Trypanocide Failure in cases of African Animal Trypanosomosis in Cattle Near Wildlife Protected Areas of Northern TanzaniaPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Dear Dr. Richards, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Jan 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kyoko Hayashida, Ph.D, DVMAcademic EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Susan Madison-AntenucciSection EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments (if provided): In addition to the comments from reviewers, I request you to confirm these two minor points. 1. Check graph and number in "Figure 4 : Trypanocide storage conditions" is correctly shown. 2. Consider result of Fisher's exact test can be explained in the result section, not in the Figure 5. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: 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 very interesting study on the use of trypanocides in Tanzania, with the objectives clearly articulated. The study design is adequate and flexible enough to accommodate the challenges posed by the study area and the study requirements. The study population is well characterized in an area of "high risk of trypanocide resistance development" was selected based on a perceived high challenge and perceived intense use of trypanocides. From this area, a total of 630 cattle from 21 farms were monitored for a year-long period. This sample size gave enough power for the majority of the required analyses. The statistical analysis was adequate and sufficient to support the conclusions and the study was conducted following high ethical standards. Reviewer #2: Lines 280 it should bijou and not bijoux for the bijou bottle For figure 2 and the decision tree make the font bigger and easier to read ********** 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 clearly presented, making good use of a variety of graphic resources. Reviewer #2: (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 #1: The robustness of its experimental design, and chiefly its longitudinal nature, make this study, in a way, a pioneer in the combined study of the complex reasons for failure in the treatment of trypanosome infections, including resistance. This experimental design should be adapted and improved in different ecological niches of sub-Saharan Africa, in order to accurately identify and address the major challenges pertaining the effective use of trypanocides. The limitations are thoroughly discussed by the authors, as well as the implications of the findings of this work for the treatment of trypanosome infections in Africa. Moreover, the authors established an interesting connection between the failure of the treatment with trypanocides and the reservoir status of cattle for Human African Trypanosomiasis, which points for an important public health dimension. Reviewer #2: The discussion could be streamlined a bit as they are quite some repetitions between the results and discussion and within the discussion itself. It is quite descriptive and long. ********** 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: The paper is very clear and well written. I added minor comments directly to the manuscript. Reviewer #2: (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: It is a robust, clear and inspiring study. Reviewer #2: Overall I compliment the authors on this is very interesting piece of work with good methods and interesting results although maybe not as conclusive as one would expect. This is an important and valuable piece of work overall. ********** 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 [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] Figure resubmission: 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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 Richards, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Title Longitudinal Observational (single cohort) Study on the Causes of Trypanocide Failure in cases of African Animal Trypanosomosis in Cattle Near Wildlife Protected Areas of Northern Tanzania' 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, Kyoko Hayashida, Ph.D, DVM Academic Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Susan Madison-Antenucci Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************************************************** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr Richards, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Longitudinal Observational (single cohort) Study on the Causes of Trypanocide Failure in cases of African Animal Trypanosomosis in Cattle Near Wildlife Protected Areas of Northern Tanzania," 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 .