Circumstances of human conflicts with bears and patterns of bear maul injuries in Bhutan: Review of records 2015–2019

Dorji Penjor; Thinley Dorji

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237812

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 31, 2020
15 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-20-09133 Circumstances of human conflicts with bears and patterns of bear maul injuries in Bhutan: review of records 2015-2019 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dorji 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 submit your revised manuscript by 1st August 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 4.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 4.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 5. Please upload a copy of Figure 3, to which you refer in your text on page 5. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 6. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information file which you refer to in your text on page 13. [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: N/A 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: No 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 article summarizes the incidence of personal injury as a result of bear attacks in Bhutan across a 5-year period. The descriptive statistics are compelling and should be available to the public. I highly recommend publishing the manuscript after it is revised. My primary concern is that the rationale for why this paper should be published was not substantive enough in the Introduction. In addition, given the seriousness of the issue and what appears to be a high incidence of bear-maul injuries, the conclusions were not strong enough and no recommendations were offered in the Discussion. What is the significance of this data? I recommend that another round of copy-editing occur. Figure 1 is lovely, but the location of the specific hospital from which the data was collected (JDWNR) should be clearly indicated and in a bigger font size. In addition, it is not clear where the bears are most likely to interact with human settlements (paragraph 2 of the Introduction). The threat to conservation efforts was mentioned in the introduction and the discussion sections, but not explained sufficiently. The Results section dealt with the data from one hospital, but could the other two referral hospitals have also treated injuries due to bears? Is there any reason to account for the increase in incidents in 2017? With revision, this paper will make a significant impact in the literature on bear attacks. Reviewer #2: The authors should improve the conclusions section - presently, they do not suggest how human-bear conflicts can be reduced or how medical help to victims of bear attack can be made more accessible and improved. There is no suggestion on how conservation can be improved or what steps could be taken to reduce animal-human conflicts. As the article is from Bhutan, and also gives a glimpse of the nature of injuries, the article should be accepted with the modifications suggested. ****** 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.] 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237812.r001
Revision 1
30 Jul 2020 Author Response Reviewer 1 comments Reviewer: Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer #1: No, Reviewer #2: Yes Response: We have revised the language and grammar throughout the manuscript. Reviewer: This article summarizes the incidence of personal injury as a result of bear attacks in Bhutan across a 5-year period. The descriptive statistics are compelling and should be available to the public. I highly recommend publishing the manuscript after it is revised. Response: Thank you for providing insightful reviews. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript to reflect the valuable comments. Reviewer: My primary concern is that the rationale for why this paper should be published was not substantive enough in the Introduction. Response: We have given the scenario of human-bear conflict in paragraph 3. This paper is intended to understanding the human cost of human-bear conflict while bear conservation efforts are equally important. We have indicated our reason for publishing this data as, “A better understanding of bear attacks may help in formulating specific measures to prevent human-bear conflict.” Reviewer: In addition, given the seriousness of the issue and what appears to be a high incidence of bear-maul injuries, the conclusions were not strong enough and no recommendations were offered in the Discussion. What is the significance of this data? Response: The two main significance are to document the grievous nature of injury and accessibility of surgical services to the victims and how human injuries are a threat to bear conservation efforts. We have revised the Discussion section to reflect these messages. We have revised the conclusion statement. Reviewer: I recommend that another round of copy-editing occur. Response: We have revised the language and grammar throughout the manuscript. Reviewer: Figure 1 is lovely, but the location of the specific hospital from which the data was collected (JDWNR) should be clearly indicated and in a bigger font size. Response: We have removed Figure 1 and presented the information on the number of victims by districts in the form of bar chart. Reviewer: In addition, it is not clear where the bears are most likely to interact with human settlements (paragraph 2 of the Introduction). Response: In Bhutan, bears are most likely to interact with human settlements along the temperate zone at altitudes of 2000-4000 metres above sea level. (This has been indicated in paragraph 1 and beginning of paragraph 2). Reviewer: The threat to conservation efforts was mentioned in the introduction and the discussion sections, but not explained sufficiently. Response: We have inserted a section on bear conservation efforts in the Discussion. Reviewer: The Results section dealt with the data from one hospital, but could the other two referral hospitals have also treated injuries due to bears? Response: There are two regional referral hospitals in the country and the National Referral Hospital where the study was conducted. Till date, no ENT or plastic surgeons are posted in the two referral hospitals. Till now, the practice has been to refer the majority of the bear maul victims to the National Referral Hospital. From our clinical experience, only few cases might not have been captured in our study. We have reflected this limitation in the last paragraph of the Discussion section. Reviewer: Is there any reason to account for the increase in incidents in 2017? With revision, this paper will make a significant impact in the literature on bear attacks. Response: We do not postulate any reason on the increase in incidents in the year 2017. The incidence in absolute terms are within the capacity of the hospital to provide care for. Reviewer 2 comments Reviewer: The authors should improve the conclusions section - presently, they do not suggest how human-bear conflicts can be reduced or. … There is no suggestion on how conservation can be improved or what steps could be taken to reduce animal-human conflicts. Response: We have inserted on section in the Discussion on how to reduce human-bear conflict in the context of Bhutan. We have written only briefly as the primary objective is to describe the human injuries and that the authors, who are medical doctors, may not be able to justify all the conservation efforts. Reviewer: how medical help to victims of bear attack can be made more accessible and improved… As the article is from Bhutan, and also gives a glimpse of the nature of injuries, the article should be accepted with the modifications suggested. Response: We have elaborated on the need to expand and increase the capacity of surgical services in the country, “While bear maul incidents were reported from 14 districts, access to surgical treatment is available only at three tertiary hospitals. Seven patients were referred outside the country for plastic and reconstructive surgery, the cost of which is borne by the Royal Government of Bhutan. This reflects the need to expand surgical services and increase the capacity of specialist surgical services in the country.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237812.r002
4 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor Circumstances of human conflicts with bears and patterns of bear maul injuries in Bhutan: review of records 2015-2019 PONE-D-20-09133R1 Dear Dr.Dorji We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I have gone through the revised manuscript and I am happy with the revision done by the authors , they have incorporated comments as well as suggestions from both the reviewers in the manuscript. Each comment has also been responded to separately by the authors in point wise manner, meeting the high standard of the journal and therefore making it acceptable for publication therein. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237812.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-20-09133R1 Circumstances of human conflicts with bears and patterns of bear maul injuries in Bhutan: review of records 2015-2019 Dear Dr. Dorji: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Tunira Bhadauria Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237812.r004

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 .