https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3169-292X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionApril 15, 2025 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Si, Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Jul 11 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: Response to ReviewersRevised Manuscript with Track ChangesManuscript 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. 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 orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002 Journal Requirements:Reviewers' comments: 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: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?: The objectives are clear and related to the hypothesis proposed. -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?: The study design is consistent with the objectives set. -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?: Yes, the study population and the number of observations made have been defined. -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?: The sample size is adequate and allows the inferences made by the authors to be drawn. -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?: Statistical analysis supports the conclusions drawn. -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?: Yes. Reviewer #2: Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? Yes -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? Yes -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? Uncertainty -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: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?: The analysis performed corresponds to what was planned in the methodology. -Are the results clearly and completely presented?: The results clarify the hypothesis and allow correlation with findings in previous studies. -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?: Yes. Reviewer #2: Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Yes -Are the results clearly and completely presented? Yes -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: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?: Yes. -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?: Yes -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?: This study highlights the importance of IL-18 with a dual mechanism of action related to the regulation of Th1/Th2/Th17 immunity with a predominance of Th2 and which, through complex immunological mechanisms, allows local control of the disease. Although the study allows hypotheses to be established that may be relevant in future clinical and therapeutic studies, it is not yet possible to determine the precise relevance of the finding in public health. Reviewer #2: Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Yes -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? Yes -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: The authors clearly outline the local and systemic immune mechanisms that influence the chronicity of sporotrichosis. I am satisfied with the experiments conducted, which have clarified that many of these mechanisms are similar (if not identical) to those reported in other research involving other species of Sporothrix. Reviewer #2: Minor Revision <!--StartFragment-->The length of "Introduction and Methods parts" is a bit too long, which should be polished. <!--EndFragment--> Tables 2 and 3: move these to supplemental material as they don't need to be in main text. ********** 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: The authors complement their previous research (Front Immunol. 2020 Nov 13;11:570888) with the results presented in this study, which establish the dual functions of IL-18 as a local promoter of the Th1/Th2/Th17-Treg axis and the superiority of Th2 as the final mechanism influencing the chronicity and low aggressiveness of the disease locally through mechanisms mediated by NLRP3-Caspase 1. The study itself is revealing in terms of the local mechanisms controlling the progression of sporotrichosis, although it does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the importance of other inflammatory mediators such as IL-4, IL-12, and IL-23 and the inflammasome in general in local control, and not only IL-18 as the main actor in these mechanisms. Nevertheless, it represents a major advance in the understanding of the immunopathogenesis Reviewer #2: Minor Revision ********** 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: Andrés Tirado-Sánchez Reviewer #2: No Figure resubmission: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 Si, Thank you for the rigorous and complete response to the points raised in the review of your work. We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'IL-18 favors Th2 responses in sporotrichosis caused by Sporothrix globosa, prolonging the course of the disease' 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, Joshua Nosanchuk, MD 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 orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002 *********************************************************** p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr Si, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "IL-18 favors Th2 responses in sporotrichosis caused by Sporothrix globosa, prolonging the course of the disease," 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 .