Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 21, 2021
Decision Letter - Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Editor

PONE-D-21-30529Baseline knowledge and attitudes of COVID-19 among hotel staff.  A cross sectional study in Kigali, Rwanda.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hagabimana,

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 Dec 03 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, 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. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Jared Omolo1, Ziad El-Khatib, Edson Rwagasore, Noella Benemariya, Olivier Nsekuye, Adeline Kabeja, Helene Balisanga, Angela Umutoni and Albert Ndagijimana1.

3. 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 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

4.  Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: Hotels and other pandemic establishments are associated with higher transmission of coronavirus. So, better sensitization of staff and strengthening is required to control the coronavirus pandemic. In this paper, the authors investigate the baseline knowledge and attitudes on COVID-19 among hotel staff in Kigali, Rwanda. A cross-sectional study is performed using structured questionnaires to 104 participants. Although the number of participants is small, it provides an essential understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minor comments:

1) Please discuss how the results stated in the manuscript are significant with only 104 hotel staff. Also, state the reason why more samples are not included in the manuscript.

2) The manuscript is well written. However, there are typos in the manuscript, such as fetal should be correct to fatal. Please go through the manuscript and correct all spelling errors.

3) In the discussion section, please discuss how present studies is relevant in the present and future pandemic.

4) There are some formatting errors in the reference section. Please correct them.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Hagabimana et al. “Baseline knowledge and attitudes of COVID-19 among hotel staff. A cross sectional study in Kigali, Rwanda.” requires revision to address major concerns.

Comments

1. The manuscript may be polished extensively for the English language.

2. Introduction (first paragraph): The information about mortality rate and various prevention approaches should be provided related to immunity and health i.e. doi: 10.1007/s12088-020-00908-0.

3. Introduction, the importance of this study may be more specifically highlighted and justified.

4. The author should provide at least one or two illustrations (additional Figures) to highlight the summary and significance.

Revision 1

Reviewer #1:

Hotels and other pandemic establishments are associated with higher transmission of coronavirus. So, better sensitization of staff and strengthening is required to control the coronavirus pandemic. In this paper, the authors investigate the baseline knowledge and attitudes on COVID-19 among hotels’ staff in Kigali, Rwanda: a cross-sectional study is performed using structured questionnaires to 104 participants. Although the number of participants is small, it provides an essential understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors ‘reply: We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the overall summary and appreciation of the study in terms of an essential understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minor comments:

1) Please discuss how the results stated in the manuscript are significant with only 104 hotel staff. Also, state the reason why more samples are not included in the manuscript.

Authors’ reply: To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study that was conducted in the domain of hotel industry in urban area of a low-income country. We believe that this study provided important insights about the infection and control measures for COVID-19 in the hospitality sector. However, there were some limitations, which prevented us to conduct a larger survey among hotels’ staff in Kigali and other parts of the country. These limitations were related to the lack of study funding and movements’ restrictions during the time of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. However, even though our findings may not provide a countrywide picture regarding the infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19 among hotels’ staff, we do believe that they provided some illumination on the importance of a systematic approach in consolidating evidence needed to identify priority populations for targeted intervention.

2) The manuscript is well written. However, there are typos in the manuscript, such as fetal should be correct to fatal. Please go through the manuscript and correct all spelling errors.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the manuscript and addressed typos errors, as suggested.

3) In the discussion section, please discuss how present studies is relevant in the present and future pandemic.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the discussion, as suggested.

4) There are some formatting errors in the reference section. Please correct them.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected errors in the reference section.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript by Hagabimana et al. “Baseline knowledge and attitudes of COVID-19 among hotel staff. A cross sectional study in Kigali, Rwanda.” requires revision to address major concerns.

Authors’ reply: We thank the esteemed Reviewer 2 for considering our paper and we hope you will find our updated version meeting your expectations.

Comments and answers:

1. The manuscript may be polished extensively for the English language.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have addressed the English language.

2. Introduction (first paragraph): The information about mortality rate and various prevention approaches should be provided related to immunity and health i.e. doi: 10.1007/s12088-020-00908-0.

Authors’ reply: We searched for the suggested reference, using the above doi, by the reviewer 2. The above doi did lead us to the reference: Rishi et.al.; Diet, Gut Microbiota and COVID-19; Indian J Microbiol; Sep 2020; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33012868/. We feel this reference is out of scope in relation to our paper. We ask kindly reviewer 2 to confirm the reference.

3. Introduction, the importance of this study may be more specifically highlighted and justified.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have considered this comment in our revised manuscript.

4. The author should provide at least one or two illustrations (additional Figures) to highlight the summary and significance.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for pointing this out. This comment was addressed accordingly in the current version of the manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Editor

Baseline knowledge and attitudes of COVID-19 among hotel staff.  A cross sectional study in Kigali, Rwanda.

PONE-D-21-30529R1

Dear Dr. Hagabimana,

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,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Editor

PONE-D-21-30529R1

Baseline knowledge and attitudes on COVID-19 among hotels’ staff: a cross-sectional study in Kigali, Rwanda.

Dear Dr. Hagabimana:

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. Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel

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 .