Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJune 27, 2019 |
---|
PONE-D-19-18147 Identifying maintenance hosts and risk factors for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Ryser-Degiorgis, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. ============================== Many thanks for submitting your interesting article to PLOS One It was reviewed by two expert reviewers, and major revisions were recommended Both reviewers made some very useful comments to aid revision Please provide a detailed rebuttal to reviewers comments and then the revised manuscript will be sent back to the same two reviewers Wishing you the best of luck with your modifications Many thanks Simon
============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting, well written paper which investigates the risk of the footrot bacteria, Dichelobacter nodosus on wild populations of ruminants in Switzerland. Using PCR assays, the authors show a low level of infection, and link this to a previous study of farmed animals. Although the paper is very well written, I have a few minor comments, mainly grammatical, and a few questions which I thought of during reading the paper. None of my comments are particularly major, nor do I feel too strongly over any, so if you disagree with any of them, then please just say. Abstract Line 17- D. nodosus in brackets isn’t needed. This is common bacterial nomenclature Line 19, comma after (Capra ibex) Line 19- fatal lesions? Can you be sure that the foot lesions killed the animal? Maybe remove it as this sounds a bit strange. Line 19, add a comma after ‘In Switzerland’ You also refer to the benign and virulent strain throughout. It is my understanding that there are a variety of subtypes/ strains which are virulent, and others which are benign. Maybe this need some clarification within the document? Introduction Line 42-44. You discuss previous infection of other free ranging ruminants. It may be useful to state where in the world this was, as if it was local to Switzerland, then it may be beneficial to your study. Line 44-46- I presume that the lame animals would be subject to increased predation? This maybe worth discussing as I am not sure what predators are seen in Switzerland. This may remove the number of lame animals by predation. Line 49- D. nodosus in brackets isn’t needed. This is common bacterial nomenclature Line 52. Comma needed between ibex and the Line 56 ‘animal-individual’ is a bit unclear. Maybe you could reword it? Line 74-75 – Sporadic character sounds slightly unusual. Maybe consider rewording? Line 90 It may be helpful to state the four different wild ruminants here. Line 92-94- not sure that this is needed. Materials and methods Line 56- Make it materials and methods Line 99- You mention the use of dead animals. Would you know how long they had been dead for? I only ask as this may affect colonisation of the feet by the pathogens. If you have the data for the dead animals, would it be possible to analyse the prevalence in these animals to ascertain if death is an issue in skewing the results? I doubt it will be, but worth a look. Line 100- You use the phrase including roe deer, red deer etc…. In reality I think this isn’t including, it is limited to as you only test the 4 different wild animals Lines 155-157. This is a methodology I have not encountered before in my footrot work. Is there a risk that you are diluting out the bacteria on a swab from foot one by rubbing it onto other feet? Just wondered how accurate that method was? (doesn’t mean a change on the manuscript, more a question out of interest) And did this methodology change when a lesion was seen to prevent spreading the bacteria, or equally to prevent losing it? Line 160. You mention that it involves storage and transportation without cooling? How does that work when it is only put into a lysis buffer? Is it that you try to keep it temperature stable? Lines 162- 173 I would say should be in the results section Line 178- is it possible to state the PCR reagents so anyone else could follow it? Line 190-191- You mention the apparent and true prevalence. Could you please define what these are? Lines 194-195- the equation looks to be in a different type font Results Line 213- you mention severe clinical signs. Could you mention what these were? Or direct the reader to where they are mentioned as I believe they are mentioned further on in the document. Lines 213-216. Again, it would be nice to know if any clinical signs were seen here, or point the reader to where this is discussed Figure 1 legend. Line 222. I am not sure what you mean by the relief? Within the results there are a lot of images and tables which are very close together. Some narrative between these may make it easier to follow (although this may change with editing). In table 1a, the virulent column doesn’t really say much as many of the results are negative. Is this column worthwhile? Happy to be led by you, if you feel that you want it to stay then I wont argue with you. The legends for table 1a and 1b would benefit from a bit more detail as to what the tables show. Also please define what SAC means in table 1b. Line 241. A comma between S1 table) and all may aid flow here Line 249, again, a comma between red deer and positive would aid flow. Line 256, benign strain presented with severe Line 264. Front feet of an ibex which was/ were positive. Alternatively a comma would suffice And line 266- hind feet of an ibex which were positive. Alternatively a comma would suffice Line 269- You discuss interspecies interactions. How clear would this be? Is it obvious and noticeable when they interact, or is it more that the animals were found in the same area? I think it is very interesting, but just want to try and understand it a little more. Line 282 and 283. You mention small domestic ruminants. Do you mean cattle and sheep here? Or others too? Could you be more specific? Line 283-284- As concerns seems slightly strange wording. Maybe with reference to? Line 288. You switch her to domestic ungulates? Could you stick to the same terms as used previously, and maybe specific sheep and cattle, or others. Or even a link to table 1b may be useful? Line 293- physical contacts. How do you define this? Line 299. A pair of commas around except domestic goats, maybe help flow here Line 317- what made you choose a cut off value of 0.2? Table 2. If you could merge the top two lines where possible it would make the table clearer Also it is clearer and more helpful not to leave gaps in the table, maybe an N/A would be more beneficial? Line 330, you mentioned the species red deer- is that being of that species or encountering it? Table 3. Maybe discuss in the legend what you mean by baseline? Discussion Line 256. A full stop is needed between livestock species, and The comparison Line 361- Insertion of strain after the word benign may aid reading Line 372- ‘As for the other two Alpine ibex that harboured the benign strain’ This sounds a bit colloquial. Maybe consider rewording. Lines 382-389- you discuss the potential involvement of Treponema species. The academic editor handling this manuscript is an expert in Treponema species, so it maybe worth a discussion with him to see if he would be willing to run the samples for you as a collaboration to further this work? Just a thought Line 400- maybe be biased? But how? Line 400. You discuss the interactions, but would the presence of people (possibly hunters) affect this? Line 404. You talk about interactions mainly being with cattle and sheep- but is this not due to the fact that these are the most abundant animals? Line 412-415- I read this a few times, but never fully understood what you were trying to say. Maybe consider rewording it? Line 419- comma after nodosus would aid reading flow. Line 434- avoid the use of our. Line 457- does not necessitate to involve wildlife doesn’t seem to make sense, and is unclear- consider rewording Line 458- you use prevalence previously to be plural, so I would avoid prevalence’s Line 461- what do you mean by a sanitised herd? Figure 1 and 2. Would it be possible to combine these? Possibly by using a thicker black border around the circles which appear on both figures? The graphs are a little unclear- but that may just be my print out I hope my comments are useful and helpful for you. Many thanks for the opportunity to review this paper Reviewer #2: A manuscript entitled “Identifying maintenance hosts and risk factors for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study” had the goal of identifying cases of benign and virulent D. nodosus in common wild ungulates. Strengths: The authors report the PCR results of 1821 sampled wild ungulates collected between 2017-2018, which is an impressive number of animals representing the most common wild ungulates with ranges covering most of Switzerland, and in a short enough time period, such that results likely reflect the general overall trend of this organism. The number of species sampled were mostly balanced. The method of foot swabbing, field preservation and D. nodosus PCR has been well elaborated in previous publications and was likely effective. Authors were able to deduce that prevalence of D. nodosus was very low in wild ungulates despite common wild -domestic ungulate interface in most of the regions sampled. This is novel and valuable information and timely as Switzerland moves to report and control virulent D. nodosus in domestic livestock. This work was done in parallel with similar published work on domestic livestock, which strongly demonstrates that domestic livestock prevalence of D. nodosus is common and significant in comparison to wild ungulates. Weaknesses: • The title suggests that “risk factors” for Footrot in non-domestic ungulates will be evaluated, though risk factors are only loosely suggested in the text with no data in the study design to make an observation or conclusion as to risk. If this is meant to broadly encompass domestic-wild population interface, this should be worded differently. • This manuscript relies heavily on observations and sample collection using untrained participants. This is worrisome for accuracy of specimens (were negative swabs truly negative cases?) and overall identification and interpretation of lesions, especially early lesions. This is particularly of concern when detailing wild – domestic animal interface, which was determined entirely from historic memory of untrained participants. The weaknesses of this data are well detailed by the authors in a paragraph starting Ln 395, and the authors should be careful to draw conclusions about transmission between livestock and wildlife, Ln 446. Further molecular work may need to be done comparing ibex and cattle / sheep isolates to make these conclusions. • Authors attempt to correlate gross and lack of gross lesions with PCR results in wild ungulates but rely mostly on participants reports and a very small subset of feet submitted for professional evaluation. This limitation should be considered throughout the text when discussing the relevance of species contact. • Discussion of pathogenesis and progression of foot lesions is not appropriate from the small subset of feet attained and is also not within the stated scope of the manuscript. The gross ibex foot lesions demonstrated are impressive and similar to that described by Wimmershoff et al 2015, but are these caused by D. nodosus? Histopathology, a larger subset of hooves representing various degrees of disease, along with a more detailed analysis of associated microorganisms would be necessary to call these primary D. nodosus lesions. D. nodosus associated? Please keep this deficit of information in mind when discussing disease development. • There is no mention of season of data collection and particularly seasonal correlation with positive D. nodosus cases in wildlife, though this would likely have an influence in disease occurrence and progression. Could this be determined from the data? • This study was done in parallel with a similar published study in domestic livestock. Where there is spacial overlap of wild D. nodosus cases with positive domestic cases, would it be possible to perform more detailed molecular work (sequencing, etc.) comparing the wild and domestic D. nodosus to demonstrate or exclude the possibility of a shared microorganism passing from domestic animals to wildlife? Below are addition comments: Ln 16 Footrot is a disease of feet and not specifically the hoof. Unless the lesion is being described only within the structures of the hoof, these references should be changed to foot / feet. Ln 18, 51, 256 Please add …presenting “with” mild and ….. Ln 19 The sentence starting “In Switzerland..” seems out of place, as no correlation is established in the abstract between Ibex and domestic sheep. The abstract needs to be organized so that this information falls into logical place and leads to why wild ruminants are to be examined. Ln 21 Please clearly note if “maintenance hosts” are wild or domestic or both, and if “sheep” are domestic or wild. Ln 31 This appears a big jump to implement domestic animals as the cause of disease in wild animals. That was not the focus of the study and appears to be something that would need to be proven under controlled lab conditions and with specific molecular work to prove identical type stains. Noting that there is a low incidence of wild carriers and results in severe disease in wild hoofstock appears more in line with the aims and outline work, at least in the abstract. Ln 45 Please change to “practical” Ln 51 Introduce the molecular or other difference between “benign” and “virulent” strains here. How do you differentiate these organisms. Ln 56 How does co-infection play into D. nodosus infection and susceptibility in domestic animals? This would be appropriate to discuss here. Ln 72 Replace “of them” with “hoof stock” Ln 131 Do the authors have a sense of reproducibility and agreement on lesion scoring, description and swabbing technique between game wardens, hunters, etc.? If so, please note how that agreement was determined. My experience is that there is a very big difference between lesion grading done by biologists, lay people and veterinarians and particularly with interpretation of early lesions. Were wardens and hunters trained in appropriate swabbing and handling techniques? If not, could this have confounded the findings? Explain. Ln 134 Was season taken into account for sampled collected? Was this information recorded? It seems environmental conditions would play importantly into risk of foot rot and general overall health of the animal. Ln 138 How were affected feet submitted? What was time elapsed between collection and receipt in the lab and how were the feet handed / analyzed once in the lab? Ln 139 Is this a historical report generated by the participant? Over what period of time are these observations of a 5 km radius representing? At the time of animal collection? Over what season? Ln 229, 237 These table legends should stand alone and clearly delineate these as Swiss wildlife and domestic ungulates, and the period for which the data was collected. Are these domestic ungulate results taken in the same time interval as wildlife? This will be important to state or explain how different time points are comparable. Ln 256 Were gross feet available to the authors in all cases with positive D. nodosus PCR? Or is this statement based on participant reports? Ln 263 Were cases only evaluated by PCR for D. nodosus with gross examination of a small subset of cases with lesions? Ln 264 These are impressive gross lesions. For the outlined study, finding of D. nodosus and specifically the virulent strain is important, but what other organisms are associated with this lesion? Treponema? Fusobacterium? Most foot diseases are far more complex than a single microorganism. Perhaps beyond the scope of this article, but it would be nice to see representative sections of this lesion histologically and perhaps demonstrating the microorganism and any associated pathogens. What time of year was this animal collected? Were there other conditions found on processing the cadavers? Ln 269 The observations by participants is helpful, but could there not be structured information by trained wardens / biologists to more objectively report wild and domestic animal interface in these cantons? Clarify here as well, during what time period and season are these observations taken? Make sure that abbreviations are decoded in a foot note on all figures and tables and that titles and legends are descriptive sufficiently so that the items can stand alone when read separate from the text. Ln 386 This citation should include Treponema associated hoof disease in free-ranging elk Vet Pathol 2019. Ln 390 Since this work evaluated a one-time PCR for D. nodosus with no controlled gross observations and missing data on subjects, it does not seem appropriate to discuss pathogenesis and progression of D. nodosus lesions in ibex. ********** 6. 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-19-18147R1 Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study PLOS ONE Dear Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 note the revisions are very minor. ============================== Many thanks for your resubmission to PLOS One The manuscript was reviewed by the same reviewers as the original, and one came back with some very minor comments- mainly typographical and grammatical. If you could modify these minor points and resubmit it, I can then recommend it for publication. I would do them for you, but I cant edit a PDF. Please don't worry about a response to reviewers letter. If you can just write that all comments were addressed, then I can have a quick read and expedite its publication Many thanks Simon ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for making the changes suggested last time. I really enjoyed reading the manuscript again. I have made a few more, very minor comments, but I don’t feel that I need to review it again. They are mainly just grammatical bits Line 40 – concerning may be better worded as affecting Line 50- the gene names should be in italics Line 54- have been detected in the absence of …. Line 117- on an animal level Line 123- For all species, the design prevalence Line 169-170- maybe reword this sentence as starting with a decimal place in words seems strange Line 174- for roe deer and red deer, this was … Line 181- a manufacturer and place of manufacture for the Kingfisher product maybe good Laboratory analysis section- the reagents used for the PCR maybe useful Line 206- 5 should be in words Throughout, every time you use et al it should be followed by a full stop and a comma and in italics Line 305- comma after goats (9%) Line 351- risk factor Table 3 looks untidy. Can it be tidied up so there isn’t a lot of empty boxes? Line 411- dawn or dusk (xx, xx), it is….. Line 431- smaller wildlife populations, it has been previously … Line 449- remove allow to Reviewer #2: This article “Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study” is a revision of a previously submitted manuscript with major revisions. The manuscript has a clear and important objective to determine the prevalence of D. nodosus in Swiss wild ruminants, which it accomplished with an impressive number of animal samples covering much of the country, and concluding that wild ruminants in fact have a very low level of D. nodosus, compared to a sister study of domestic ruminants, which showed a high prevalence of the bacteria. This manuscript is well written and used established protocols for collection and processing of samples. The interpretation of the data is legitimate and well-represented with statistically sound and significant conclusions “In conclusion, the data suggest that wild ungulates are likely irrelevant for the maintenance and spread of D. nodosus. Furthermore, we add evidence that both D. nodosus strain types can be associated with severe disease in Alpine ibex.” The authors did a thorough job of addressing all reviewers’ comments with excellent elaboration of justifications and many appropriate clarifications and improvements to the manuscript. This is much appreciated and this manuscript will be an excellent addition to the current literature on foot disease in wild ruminants. A minor point that may be detected by the photo editor, on Fig. 3 there is significant variation on white balance in the hoof background. Perhaps this can be tweaked to be better balanced? The lesions are well represented. ********** 7. 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study PONE-D-19-18147R2 Dear Dr. Ryser-Degiorgis, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Many thanks for your resubmission to PLOS One I have recommended your manuscript for publication. thank you for completing the comments which the reviewers stated last time. I wish you the best of luck for your future research, and will keep an eye out for future papers from your group Many thanks Simon Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-19-18147R2 Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study Dear Dr. Ryser-Degiorgis: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Simon Russell Clegg Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .