PNTD-D-25-01818

Dengue transmission dynamics in an urban setting in western India

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Mohanty,

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' 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 by January 23, 2026. 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,

Elda Eliza Sanchez

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Nigel Beebe

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal and for your patience throughout the review process. We have now received comments from all three reviewers. One reviewer has recommended acceptance, while the other two have recommended minor revisions.

After carefully examining the full set of comments, it appears that the revisions requested—though classified as “minor” by the reviewers—are fairly substantial in scope. Several points will require clarification, additional explanation, and adjustments to the manuscript to ensure clarity, rigor, and completeness.

In light of this, the editorial decision is Major Revision Required. We invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript that thoroughly addresses all reviewer comments. Please provide a detailed, point-by-point response outlining how each comment has been addressed. If you choose not to make a suggested change, please explain your reasoning clearly.

We value the contribution your work can make, and we believe that addressing these issues will strengthen the manuscript significantly.

Thank you again for your contribution, and we look forward to receiving your revised submission.

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

1) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/figures

2) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager.

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7. Please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC BY 4.0 license.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite u201cPlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0u201d in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/).

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 good study on transmission of Dengue in Goa. The Objectives are cledar and methodologies adopted are OK.

Reviewer #2: The study objectives are clearly stated with testable hypotheses.

The study design appropriately addresses the objectives using spatial and temporal analysis methods.

The population under study is well described and relevant to the hypotheses.

Sample size sufficiency is questionable for some analyses, particularly serotype data, which has limited samples for fine-scale inference.

The statistical methods used are generally appropriate, though incorporation of underreporting adjustments and integrated data analysis could strengthen the conclusions.

There appear to be no major ethical or regulatory concerns raised based on the information provided.

Reviewer #3: - The objectives of the study are clearly articulated.

- The study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives.

- The study area is clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis; I have suggested some improvements.

- The sample size includes data from 34 health facilities.

- The statistical analysis used supports the conclusions.

- I found no particular concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements.

**********

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 obtained are almost clearly analysed

Reviewer #2: The analysis mostly matches the stated analysis plan, but lacks key adjustments for underreporting and integrated data analysis as noted.

The results are generally clearly presented, but some important methodological details and model limitations should be better explained to support full interpretation.

Figures and tables are of adequate quality and clarity but could be enhanced by including quantitative values, clearer legends, and contextual explanations for greater reader comprehension.

Reviewer #3: Yes.

I have suggested improving the figures.

**********

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 are supported by data

Reviewer #2: The conclusions are generally supported by the data but should be tempered by acknowledging key limitations related to data quality and methodology.

Limitations are mentioned but not fully detailed, especially regarding underreporting, serotype data constraints, and model weaknesses; these should be clearly described.

The authors discuss the potential usefulness of the data to advance understanding, but this could be expanded to include how integrated analyses might improve insights.

Public health relevance is addressed, highlighting the importance of spatial analytics for targeting interventions; however, more concrete recommendations for operationalizing findings would strengthen this aspect.

Reviewer #3: 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 English language may be checked

Reviewer #2: Minor revision required

Reviewer #3: Yes, I have suggested minor editorial corrections in the text. See the comments file attached for detailed comments.

**********

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: Though small in size, Goa is one of India’s most popular states and features prominently on the wish list of countless travellers. However, it has witnessed a steep rise in dengue cases over the last decade. The authors have examined the transmission dynamics of dengue in Goa and identified DEN-2 as the dominant serotype. Most dengue clusters were concentrated in North Goa. Space–time analyses revealed a significant monotonic increase in cases within recurrent high-incidence clusters.

The objectovesof the study were addressed. And the methodologies adopted are OK.

The regression model highlighted the importance of climatic variables with a lag period of 2–3 months, as well as a rainfall threshold of 607–630 mm—rainfall above this level may lead to increased dengue transmission. The authors conclude that integrating space–time analytics, negative binomial modelling, and climate-lagged associations can produce operationally useful risk maps and short-term forecasts. These findings support pre-monsoon source reduction, targeted vector control, serotype-guided surveillance, and climate-informed early warning systems for Goa and similar settings in western India.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: See my comments.

**********

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: Aditya Prasad Dash

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Rajpal Singh Yadav

[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, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-25-01818 comments.docx

Dear Ajeet Kumar Mohanty, PhD,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Dengue transmission dynamics in an urban setting in western India' 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,

Elda Eliza Sanchez

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Nigel Beebe

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

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