https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3965-383X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionFebruary 27, 2026 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Khosavanna, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The need for balanced dengue vaccine protection: Insights from Thai surveillance data on four serotypes' 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, Jonas Klingström Academic Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Michael Holbrook 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 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: see comments made in the final box. 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? --> Yes -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: see remarks in the box below 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: This is the textbook description of what happens in a population of a tropical country that supports the transmission of all four types of dengue viruses. It describes the clinical outcomes of dengue infections that actually happened in populations where all 4 dengue viruses were endemically transmitted. As described in the text, disease burdens encumbered by each of the four dengue viruses are remarkably similar. Both primary and secondary heterotypic dengue infections by all four dengue viruses occur and cause overt symptoms. For all four types, second heterotypic dengue infections consistently cause a higher fraction of severe disease than do primary dengue infections. For a long time to come, this will be the encyclopedic reference used to justify the need for and value of tetravalent dengue vaccines. The reviewer shares with the authors a silent prayer that an efficient and fully competent all-purpose dengue vaccine will someday emerge. Products on the market or soon to finish efficacy trials might be improved. The efficacy of administering two different dengue vaccines should be fully studied. They might work! 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: This is an important contribution to the dengue literature and necessary to justify the effort and expense of producing tetravalent dengue vaccines Reviewer #2: Accept ********** 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: Summary of research The authors investigated data from passive surveillance collected from Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand (2004–2022) and characterized longterm DENV serotype circulation in relation to clinical burden in a endemic setting. The results showed sustained co-circulation of all four serotypes for almost two decades including a shift in the dominant serotype with periodic shifts in dominant serotype. They included analysed 6,840 PCR-confirmed dengue cases where DENV-1 was predominant, furthermore, they show that DENV-2 and DENV-4 infections were more represented in secondary infections. Comments The manuscript is well written and easy to understand. It strongly contributes to the scientific community within the field of dengue, ADE, secondary infections and surveillance. Major conserns None Minor concerns None Overall impression The study design, data from passive surveillance, is elegant and nicely designed to extract the data. The data provided in this study contribute to the understanding of disease burden of dengue in Thailand, and is also of importance for other endemic countries. As there are new dengue vaccines upcoming, the data is of importance for vaccine recommendations in endemic countries, but also in the area of travel medicine for non-endemic countries. The manuscript is easy to follow and well written. Tables and figures are relevant, I do not see additional data needed to confirm the outlined question. ********** 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: Scott B Halstead Reviewer #2: Yes: Kim Blom |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr. Khosavanna, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "The need for balanced dengue vaccine protection: Insights from Thai surveillance data on four serotypes," 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. For Research Articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 .