Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 8, 2020
Decision Letter - Jasbir Singh Bedi, Editor

PONE-D-20-21180

Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants and associated risk behaviours for humans in different husbandry systems in Mali

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Souleymane,

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 Nov 08 2020 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 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,

Jasbir Singh Bedi

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. Please address the following:

- Please confirm that parental consent was not only requested, but obtained for participants who were minors.

- Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

- In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a)  a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant inclusion in the analysis, b) a table of relevant demographic details, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.

- Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section.

- Please state the dates during which data collection took place.

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4.We note that [Figure(s) 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [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].”

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. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-21180

Title: “Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants and associated risk behaviours for humans in different husbandry systems in Mali”

I appreciate the efforts by the authors to address the role of small ruminant husbandry systems in maintaining and transmitting brucellosis in Mali. Brucellosis remain an important endemic zoonoses in many of the developing nations, where such epidemiological studies need to be carried out to reveal the true prevalence and risk factors for the disease. I have major concern with the presentation of the results in terms of possible risk factors without the calculation of the measures of association, which I have highlighted in comment number 4.

Comments:

1. Line 53-55: “Livestock in Mali is facing many health concerns and many diseases hinder the development of the production in the country among which brucellosis [3]”…. The sentence seems to be incomplete, rephrase it.

2. Line 56: “The species B. melitensis which is the most widespread in small ruminants seems to be the most pathogenic in humans”: Provide the reference for it.

3. Line 106: “In each locality (village, hamlet), six farms were chosen”: The rationale for choosing six farms need to be described.

4. Results: The major issue with results are that there is no calculation for measures of association, the authors depicted the results just in % seroprevalence for different parameters. The univariate and multivariate analysis of the possible risk factors need to be estimated to justify the objectives of the study in terms of risk factors.

5. Line 234: “Risk behaviors of brucellosis transmission identified among farmers”: The authors presented the frequency of the possible risk factors for brucellosis transmission on the basis of the responses to the questionnaire. There is also need to find the association with the farm level prevalence of brucellosis. The title is little misnomer, the authors didn’t study the transmission pathways of brucellosis and there is no supporting data for human brucellosis prevalence.

6. Line 247: “this is an up-to-date study conducted”: The sentence needs to be revised.

7. Line 249: We used two diagnostic “technics”: Spell check it.

8. Line 252: “Seroprevalence and risk behaviors will be the main points around which the discussion will be structured”.: Need to be revised.

9. Line 265-267: “He also argued that a high animal concentration in an area would favour animal infection. This was somewhat confirmed by our results.”: There is simply the mention of herd size and seroprevalence in Table 1, the association between these need to be estimated before arriving any conclusion.

10. Figure 2: In Segou, the bar chart needs to be revised to bring urban bar together with rest of the two

11. Figure 3: Brucellosis risk behaviors identified according to small ruminant’s husbandry systems: I don’t think that this figure provides any significant finding, it can be supplementary Table.

**********

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

[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.

Revision 1

#Responses

• Please address the following: - Please confirm that parental consent was not only requested, but obtained for participants who were minors.

#####The consent of each minor interviewed was obtained in addition to that of the responsible adult (see consent form attached). The statement has been changed to reflect that the consent for participants who were minors was actually obtained Line [205]

• Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

#####English and French versions of the questionnaire have been attached (see the attached file)

• In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant inclusion in the analysis, b) a table of relevant demographic details, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.

##########

a. Inclusion / exclusion criteria are describe in the methods section line [98 - 101]

b. Demographic details: Demographic details about study participants have been added in the results section. line [204 - 213]

c. Sample representativeness: The sample can be confidently considered as representative of a larger population because we used random sampling method at all levels.

• Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section.

#####The limitations of the study are discussed in the discussion section. Line [331 - 339]

• Please state the dates during which data collection took place.

Month and dates of the study are include in the ‘’methods section’’ line [75]

• We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

#####The data are attached with the files associated with the manuscript

Reviewer #1: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-21180 Title: “Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants and associated risk behaviours for humans in different husbandry systems in Mali” I appreciate the efforts by the authors to address the role of small ruminant husbandry systems in maintaining and transmitting brucellosis in Mali. Brucellosis remain an important endemic zoonoses in many of the developing nations, where such epidemiological studies need to be carried out to reveal the true prevalence and risk factors for the disease. I have major concern with the presentation of the results in terms of possible risk factors without the calculation of the measures of association, which I have highlighted in comment number 4.

Comments:

1. Line 53-55: “Livestock in Mali is facing many health concerns and many diseases hinder the development of the production in the country among which brucellosis [3]”…. The sentence seems to be incomplete, rephrase it

#####The sentence has been rephrased, line [54 - 55]

2. Line 56: “The species B. melitensis which is the most widespread in small ruminants seems to be the most pathogenic in humans”: Provide the reference for it.

#####The references have been added, line [59]

3. Line 106: “In each locality (village, hamlet), six farms were chosen”: The rationale for choosing six farms need to be described.

#####The rationale has been described Line [106 - 110]

4. Results: The major issue with results are that there is no calculation for measures of association, the authors depicted the results just in % seroprevalence for different parameters. The univariate and multivariate analysis of the possible risk factors need to be estimated to justify the objectives of the study in terms of risk factors.

We performed logistic regression analysis to determine association between the predetermined risk factors and seropositivity. See in the methodology section Line [178 - 183], In the results section line [267 - 278] and in the discussion section.

5. Line 234: “Risk behaviors of brucellosis transmission identified among farmers”: The authors presented the frequency of the possible risk factors for brucellosis transmission on the basis of the responses to the questionnaire. There is also need to find the association with the farm level prevalence of brucellosis. The title is little misnomer, the authors didn’t study the transmission pathways of brucellosis and there is no supporting data for human brucellosis prevalence

#####In the present study we focussed on the seroprevalence of brucellosis in animals and risk behaviours that would facilitate transmission of the disease/infection within animals and between animals and humans.

One of the limitations of the study is the fact that we did not perform serological tests in humans. The study was limited to the observation of presence of risky behaviours as identified by several authors. Presence of infected animals and risky behaviours are the critical as will facilitate transmission of the disease. The next stage is now to check on the exposure status on the humans.

6. Line 247: “this is an up-to-date study conducted”: The sentence needs to be revised

#####[the sentence has been revised line 280 - 282].

7. Line 249: We used two diagnostic “technics”: Spell check it

##########(the sentence has been deleted

8. Line 252: “Seroprevalence and risk behaviors will be the main points around which the discussion will be structured”: Need to be revised.

##########This sentence has been deleted

9. Line 265-267: “He also argued that a high animal concentration in an area would favour animal infection. This was somewhat confirmed by our results.”: There is simply the mention of herd size and seroprevalence in Table 1, the association between these need to be estimated before arriving any conclusion

##########We performed a regression analysis and we found the association between herd size and seropositivity [see table 4].

10. Figure 2 (now Figure 1): In Segou, the bar chart needs to be revised to bring urban bar together with rest of the two

##########The urban bar has been brought closer to the other two bars See Figure 1.

11. Figure 3: Brucellosis risk behaviors identified according to small ruminant’s husbandry systems: I don’t think that this figure provides any significant finding, it can be supplementary Table.

##########We have removed figure 3 as most of the information is found in the text.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Jasbir Singh Bedi, Editor

PONE-D-20-21180R1

Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants and related risk behaviours among humans in different husbandry systems in Mali

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Souleymane ,

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.

The manuscript needs minor revision in the form of spelling checks and typo errors. Please check it carefully and the re-submit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 23 December 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,

Jasbir Singh Bedi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Revision 2

##### Responses to reviewers

The whole document has been checked, spelling and typographical errors have been revised.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Jasbir Singh Bedi, Editor

Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants and related risk behaviours among humans in different husbandry systems in Mali

PONE-D-20-21180R2

Dear Dr. Souleymane,

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,

Jasbir Singh Bedi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jasbir Singh Bedi, Editor

PONE-D-20-21180R2

Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants and related risk behaviours among humans in different husbandry systems in Mali

Dear Dr. Traoré:

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. Jasbir Singh Bedi

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 .