IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries

Guillaume Belot; François Caya; Kaylee Myhre Errecaborde; Tieble Traore; Brice Lafia; Artem Skrypnyk; Djhane Montabord; Maud Carron; Susan Corning; Rajesh Sreedharan; Nicolas Isla; Tanja Schmidt; Gyanendra Gongal; Dalia Samhouri; Enrique Perez-Gutierrez; Ana Riviere-Cinnamond; Jun Xing; Stella Chungong; Stephane de la Rocque

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245312

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 22, 2020
17 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Ghaffar Ali, Editor PONE-D-20-40093 IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries PLOS ONE Dear Dr. BELOT, 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 pay attention to the introduction section, some revisions are suggested by the reviewers. Reviewers have also suggested to revise results and discussion sections comprehensively. Please modify Figures for more clarity and better understanding. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 20 2021 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, Ghaffar Ali, PhD 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work has been supported by many funders including the United States Defense Threat Reduction Agency (US-DTRA), the Global Partnership Program (GPP), the EU Commission's Directorate-General for International Cooperation and 475 Development (DG DEVCO), the Russian Federation and the World Bank, among others." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The authors received no specific funding for this work" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 4. We note that Figure 4 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 4 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/ [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: I Don't Know 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: No ****** 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: The enjoyed reading this article unveiling the role of National Bridging Workshops in operationalizing the collaboration between human and animal health sectors. The authors have highlighted the importance of integration of sector-specific and collaborative goals. The article can be considered for publication in the PLOS ONE. I have the following minor comments. 1. Introduction: Authors may consider revising the line 87-92. 2. Results: Authors should provide a summary of the key finding and significant features of the tool before getting into the detailed description. It is difficult to get the salient outcomes of the study in its current form. 3. Fig 4. Please indicate what different colours are referring to. I would suggest adding country names as well which make it easier to understand for the readers with different parts of the world. 4. The discussion could have been improved by incorporating major outcomes and its relevant literature from similar efforts/tools developed in the past. 5. Currently, methods, results and discussion – all the sessions are amalgamated and twisting around. 6. Conclusion: No comment. Reviewer #2: The One Health approach is often visualized with three key actors: human health, animal health and environmental health. The authors explains in the emanuscript an endeavour for one health program across nations through a series of six phased pilots, the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop (NBW) method was developed and refined. The NBW process gathers human and animal health stakeholders and follows seven sessions, scheduled across three days. The outputs from each session build towards the next one, following a structured process that goes from gap identification to joint planning of corrective measures. These efforts helped identify the strength and gaps in country's preparedness. The NBW process allows human and animal health sector representatives to jointly identify actions that support collaboration while advancing evaluation goals identified through the IHR-MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway. These paper elaborates how an international effort was used counter One health issues and program to address the gaps was launched. The authors should carry more such programs in regard to One Health. ****** 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.0245312.r001
Revision 1
7 Apr 2021 Author Response 15 March 2021: Upon request from the journal, authors updated the ethic statement to the following: "No research was conducted on human subjects or other animal subjects for the purpose of this article therefore no ethics approval was required. Participants to the workshops were invited and came in full consent. Their consent was not documented in any written way. Participants were informed as to the nature of their participation (fact-sheet, concept note, agenda) prior to coming to the workshop. In the opening session of every workshop, the first presentation gave an overview of the method and process of the workshop and stated that results would be compiled in a report and posted on the WHO website and may later be used for further research and publication. The information obtained was recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the Human Subjects cannot be readily ascertained, directly or indirectly through identifiers linked to the subjects." Journal 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 Response from authors: after revision of the style requirements, the following corrections were brought to the manuscript: • Removal of Figures from the manuscript • Relocation of the legends after the tables for Table 2 and Table 3 • Relocation of the ‘Supporting Information’ section after the ‘References’ section The manuscript now meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements as detailed in the templates provided. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work has been supported by many funders including the United States Defense Threat Reduction Agency (US-DTRA), the Global Partnership Program (GPP), the EU Commission's Directorate-General for International Cooperation and 475 Development (DG DEVCO), the Russian Federation and the World Bank, among others." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The authors received no specific funding for this work" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response from authors: • The funding-related paragraph was removed from the Acknowledgments section. • Our amended statement was added in the cover letter: “The organization of IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops in countries was supported by many funders including the United States Defense Threat Reduction Agency (US-DTRA), the Global Partnership Program (GPP), the EU Commission's Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO), the Russian Federation and the World Bank, among others.” 3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. Response from authors: All figures have been removed from the manuscript accordingly. 4. We note that Figure 4 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. Response from authors: The map (Figure 4) was replaced by a table (Table 4) for enhanced clarity and to avoid any potential copyright issue. Comments from Reviewers: Reviewer #1 Reviewer #1: The enjoyed reading this article unveiling the role of National Bridging Workshops in operationalizing the collaboration between human and animal health sectors. The authors have highlighted the importance of integration of sector-specific and collaborative goals. The article can be considered for publication in the PLOS ONE. I have the following minor comments. 1. Introduction: Authors may consider revising the line 87-92. 2. Results: Authors should provide a summary of the key finding and significant features of the tool before getting into the detailed description. It is difficult to get the salient outcomes of the study in its current form. 3. Fig 4. Please indicate what different colours are referring to. I would suggest adding country names as well which make it easier to understand for the readers with different parts of the world. 4. The discussion could have been improved by incorporating major outcomes and its relevant literature from similar efforts/tools developed in the past. 5. Currently, methods, results and discussion – all the sessions are amalgamated and twisting around. 6. Conclusion: No comment. Response from authors: 1. As suggested, lines 87-92 in the introduction have been fully rewritten and expanded upon for enhanced clarity (lines 93-98 of the track changes version). 2. The paragraph summarizing the 5 key lessons learned from the development of the tool was added in the Results section (lines 264-272) right before the detailed description: “Key lessons learned from the two phases of iterative development of the tool include (i) the need to have a shared understanding of sector-specific assessments such as IHR and PVS and how they contribute to collaborative advantages, (ii) the need to have representatives from different levels (national, sub-national, local) to jointly share the current status of collaboration and discuss how to operationalize shared outputs; (iii) the need for stakeholders to engage as early as possible in scenario-based exercises, so that the conceptualization of joint activities is facilitated and gaps can easily be identified and discussed; (iv) the importance of having the two sectors develop and commit to a joint, realistic and operational roadmap to improve their collaboration; and (v) a well-structured approach and robust facilitation are required for these events.” 3. The map (Figure 4) was replaced by a table (Table 4) displaying all the country names for clearer understanding. 4. We agree with the reviewer statements and have clarified and highlighted the following key outcomes in lines 389-391 of the version with track changes: The NBW is a novel tool which bridges internationally accepted framework (IHR and PVS) and tools from the two sectors to allow for improved collaboration while supporting sector-specific needs. It is the first tool that aims to do this and as such, no similar effort or tools was found in the literature for comparison. 5. Method: The authors have made every attempt to clarify the structure and flow of the paper to walk to the reader through a linear progression of methods, results and discussion. The method section now describes the iterative development of the process of NBWs, which of course was an iterative methodology of improvement. Once the full method and material for the NBWs were finalized, the process was divided into 7 distinct sessions. We edited line 254 to better clarify this: “The final process of the NBW was split into seven sessions (Table 2) over the course of a three-day in-person workshop”. Result: We made some formatting changes to better separate the different sessions and make them more visible. Each session has its own paragraph to avoid any blending and to make sure each is distinctive. In addition, we moved the introduction of key findings from the methods to results as was suggested under point 2, see lines 285-293. Discussion: The discussion points address the NBW event as a whole and are not session-specific. We discuss the fact that it is the first event of this type and then discuss what from our experience were the key success factors: (i) high-level engagement and country ownership, (ii) participant representation, (iii) interactive and participatory approach with robust facilitation and (iv) linkages with IHR and PVS sector-specific goals. These four points are addressed in further details in the manuscript but they are generic to the whole workshop and not specific to any session. To avoid any confusion, we removed any reference to a session number, apart from the paragraph detailing the role of country officials in the last session of the workshop as it is an important example to discuss point (i). As recommended in reviewer point 4, we added additional language to highlight the key outcome in lines 438-440. Reviewer #2 Reviewer #2: The One Health approach is often visualized with three key actors: human health, animal health and environmental health. The authors explains in the emanuscript an endeavour for one health program across nations through a series of six phased pilots, the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop (NBW) method was developed and refined. The NBW process gathers human and animal health stakeholders and follows seven sessions, scheduled across three days. The outputs from each session build towards the next one, following a structured process that goes from gap identification to joint planning of corrective measures. These efforts helped identify the strength and gaps in country's preparedness. The NBW process allows human and animal health sector representatives to jointly identify actions that support collaboration while advancing evaluation goals identified through the IHR-MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway. These paper elaborates how an international effort was used counter One health issues and program to address the gaps was launched. The authors should carry more such programs in regard to One Health. Response from authors: No specific revision was requested by Reviewer #2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE Submission - Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245312.r002
4 May 2021 Decision Letter - Ghaffar Ali, Editor IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries PONE-D-20-40093R1 Dear Dr. BELOT, 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, Ghaffar Ali, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: N/A ****** 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: Authors have addressed all the comments and I am now happy to accept the manuscript for publication. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245312.r003
Formally Accepted
17 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Ghaffar Ali, Editor PONE-D-20-40093R1 IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries Dear Dr. Belot: 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. Ghaffar Ali Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245312.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 .