Malaria transmission in Africa: Its relationship with yellow fever and measles

Oluyemi A. Okunlola; Oyetunde T. Oyeyemi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268080

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 28, 2021
5 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-21-27941Malaria transmission in Africa: its relationship with yellow fever and measlesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oyeyemi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if the authors revise it to address specific points raised by the reviewer. According to the reviewers, there are some specific areas where further improvements would be of substantial benefit to the readers. For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below. Please submit your revised manuscript by January 20. 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, Luzia Helena Carvalho, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. 4. We note that Figure(s) 1 and 2 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: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1 and 2 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].” b. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: General comments This is an important subject in Africa, the continent with the highest burden of malaria, but of recently experiencing outbreaks due to viral diseases. Line 69: Authors should change the word “Precious” to “Previous” Line 207. The statement is not correct. Rephrase to read “Fever in each of African Region and Africa as a whole” Line 236: The word ITN has been introduced without being defined anywhere in the manuscript Lines 236-237: The statement must be supported by appropriate References Line 276: The mention of Culex mosquito is irrelevant and confusing. The mosquito species neither transmit malaria no Yellow fever. ****** 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: Yes:** Leonard Mboera [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.0268080.r001
Revision 1
6 Jan 2022 Author Response Response to comments We thank you for your efforts both in giving our manuscript quality review and expediting the process. As suggested and requested by the Editor and the Reviewer, we have provided responses to the concerns raised. Our responses are appended below: Editor’s comments 1. We have now adapted the manuscript as suggested to the journal’s style 2. Online profile is now update to include the ORCID number of the corresponding 3. We have now removed the phrase “data not shown” and associated sentence from the manuscript since the data are not a core part of the research being presented in our study. 4. Figures 1 and 2 are original and we generated by the software QGIS (version 3.14). This was stated in the statistical analyses. So, they have no copyright issues. 5. Data availability statement has been revised and the website included. The file containing the minimal data is also included as supplementary file. Reviewer #1: General comments This is an important subject in Africa, the continent with the highest burden of malaria, but of recently experiencing outbreaks due to viral diseases. Line 69: Authors should change the word “Precious” to “Previous” Response – Thank you for the observation. It has now been corrected Line 207. The statement is not correct. Rephrase to read “Fever in each of African Region and Africa as a whole” Response – Thank you. This is now corrected as requested Line 236: The word ITN has been introduced without being defined anywhere in the manuscript Response – Thank you for the observation, it is now defined at first mention (please see line 224) Lines 236-237: The statement must be supported by appropriate References Response – Thank you, we have now included references Line 276: The mention of Culex mosquito is irrelevant and confusing. The mosquito species neither transmit malaria no Yellow fever. Response – Thank you, we have deleted Culex mosquitoes as advised Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268080.r002
17 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-21-27941R1Malaria transmission in Africa: its relationship with yellow fever and measlesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oyeyemi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if the authors revise it to address specific points raised now by the reviewer #1. According to the reviewer, there are some specific areas where further improvements would be of substantial benefit to the readers. For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below. Please submit your revised manuscript by March 30. 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, Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: First, I want to congratulate the authors for implementing this relevance and timely research work. The study is important, well-written and it can provide insights to show the association of malaria transmission with common viral infection in Africa. However, while I goes across throughout the text, I found few concerns that that should be considered and needs to be modified prior to publication. So, I recommend the author to check my comments and suggestions which I indicated in the editable version of the PDF attached herein below. As a general comment, I need the author to consider the following comments 1. The background the section of the manuscript is too shallow and the author incorporate few outdated figures as I indicated with the attached pdf file. So, I need the author to show the gab and the relevance of the work in detail. 2. Despite the method section is adequately expressed, still I need the author to consider my suggestions in the statistical analysis sub-headings of the text. 3. There are still few things that needs to be modified based on my suggestion as it indicated in the attached file. 4. Like that of the background section, the discussion of the manuscript is too shallow and the findings of the author is not discussed well. Moreover, the authors lack inconsistency during expressing the findings of the work. for example in the result section of the manuscript (line#197-198) the author indicated that the incidence of malaria is negatively associated with measles case, but this finding is reciprocally indicated in the discussion section of the manuscript (line #246-247). So, the the author should be discuss in detail for the each findings of the result of this work prior to submit the revised version of this text. 5. The author failed to show the strength and limitations of the study. Reviewer #3: All comments, suggestions and questions made by the previous reviewer were addressed by the authors. ****** 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 #2: Yes:** Tegegne Eshetu Reviewer #3: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-27941_R1 (1).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268080.r003
Revision 2
25 Mar 2022 Author Response Response to reviewer’s comments Abstract Comment - Do you think that having only few studies indicate the relevance of your study? Better to show existing gaps that assured the valuable of your study in this section? Response – Thank you, we have modified the statement (see lines 32-33). Comment - please Indicate data management and clearance methods if the author implemented prior to data analysis Response – Thank you for the comment. While we did not include this because of words limit in abstract section, we instead given the detail in the materials and methods section Comment - Please indicate the significant limit of your analysis. Response – Thank you. This is now included (Line 39) Comment - The author should conclude the main findings of this work before indicating the relevance of this work. Response – Thank you, this is now revised accordingly Introduction The background section of your text is somewhat shallow. So, I suggest the author to re-write the background section of the text in detail based on the following structure if the author agreed with this structure. 1. malaria is xxx and Malaria causes X and Y cases and problems globally and /or in africa..... Cuurently, WHO and/or other stakeholders recommend XXX public health intervention measures to control and prevent or eliminate or eradicate....malaria. 2. However, the co-existence of XXX viral infection in similar geographical location with malaria 3. Then if their any available challenges due to having similar geographical distribution..may in relation to current prevention and control mechanism, may be in relation to vaccine effectiveness....may be in related to treatment failure or anyother. Then gabs and the relevance your finding to fill such available gabs Response – Thank you for these important observations. We have included more information as suggested to include the gaps and the justifications for the study (see the red highlights). Comments - I am feeling there is something cracked between the previous paragraph and this one. So, I recommend the author to incorporate few transition sentences prior to define yellow fever (i;e. a sentences which act as bridge between malaria you stated in the first paragraph and yellow fever in this paragraph to keep idea flow better. Response – Thank you, we have now rephrased for flow of idea (see Line 61) Comment - Please add a reference for the impact of placental malaria on the infant immunity to measle. Response – Thank you, reference now included (see ref. 15 in line 78). Comment – ‘’Because all the studied variables are cases and rates which are regarded as count data, a Panel Poisson regression model was adopted to understudy these relationships. Where there are observed excess zero in the cases of event considered in the study, a zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression that is robust to the occurrence of zero is adopted to achieve our specified objectives’’. Such statements should be incorporated in the statistical analysis sub-heading of the tesx Response – We have now included the statement in the statistical analysis sub-section. Materials and methods (line 167-171). Comments - How could manage and associate the findings of malaria with yellow fever and measles in this paper since the author collected the recorded data in different time period. So, did the author consider this time period variation while the author conclude the association of malaria incident and death with yellow fever and measles? Response: Thank you for your comments There are two main analyses in the study. The first analysis was the determination of annual trend change for each Malaria incidence, Death due to malaria, Measles and Yellow fever. Here, changes of these four variables were evaluated over time for each country considered in the study and each dataset were treated separately for this analysis. The time horizon for malaria incidence and death due to the malaria trend equation was 2000-2018 whereas the time horizon for Measles and Yellow fever trend equation was 1980 and 2019. This decision was based on the availability of the data obtained from the secondary source mentioned in the manuscript. The second analysis was a regression equation where the effect of both Measles and Yellow fever on each of the Malaria incidence and Death due to malaria was investigated. Two data files were used for this analysis bearing in mind that in any regression problem there must be a pair of x and y variables. The first data file had Malaria as the dependent variable while both Measles and Yellow fever were the independent variables. The time horizon for this regression was 2000-2018 since information for malaria incidence was not available for 1980-1999 and 2019. Similarly, the second data file contained Death due to malaria as the dependent variable with Measles and Yellow fever as independent variables. The time horizon for this analysis was 2000-2017 Comment - Despite you are indicating the significance and insignificance of your finding in your result and discussion sub-heading, the author failed to indicate the significance limit of your analysis. So please add here the significance limit for your statistical analysis output. Response – Thank you for the observation. We have now included the significance limit (see line 173). Results Comment – Figures quality should be improved Response - Thank you. We have now used the PACE website provided by Plos to help ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements and improve the quality. Discussion Comment - According to the recent World Health Organization (WHO) published report showed, malaria and related deaths have been increased after 2019. If so, How could you harmonize your conclusion based on your finding with the WHO report? Response – Thank you for this important observation. We have tried to provide reasons for your concern in the MS as follow “It is however important to stress that the recent WHO published report showed increase in malaria cases and associated deaths after 2019 [27]. The reasons for this have been accrued to plateaued malaria interventional funding, increase in drug and insecticide resistance, and climate change which threatens to push malaria transmission to new regions [28]. COVID-19 has further disrupted progress and implementation of various malaria intervention programs [28]”. Please see lines 256-260. Comment - Are sure does modification of mosquito biting behavior is a factor for decline of malaria? I need more justification for this statement if your answer is yes. Response – Thank you for your comment. This is an observation from another author which we referenced. Yes, we agree with the statement as the inability of the mosquitoes to access humans for blood meal indoor due to hindrance caused by ITN could trigger a behavioural change in mosquitoes to source for blood meal outside where there is no ITN. Comment - would you mention few socio-ecological conditions which favour for the reduction of density of mosquito? Please elaborate it by giving example? Response – Thank you for the observation. The examples are already given in the text. Please see the sentence below. “changes in socio-ecological conditions in many malaria-endemic areas of Africa including changes in temperature, deforestation [22], increase use of agricultural pesticides with mosquitocidal properties [23], improved house constructions [24] could result in a decreased density of mosquitoes”. Comment - Your justification is insuffeicent? please discuss in detail the possible reasons why malaria associated deaths is high in Africa unlike other past of the coninent. Response – Thank you for the comment. However, the factors already highlighted are the major reasons we believe to be associated with high malaria deaths in Africa. Comment - Are you sure do the incidence of malaria and measles case showed a positive relationship based on your finding? But you indicated in line 197-198, o]a significant negative relationship existed between malaria and measles cases (P<0.05). If so, why the author failed to keep the consistence of the findings? The author should give a clear information for this contradictory conclussion? Moreover, the author expected to discuss possible reasons why this findings happen? Response – Thank you for this very important observation. This is a mistake from our end. We have now corrected it. We have also changed the direction of the discussion based on this change (see lines 276-287). Comment - Why the author need to discuss the incidence of malaria in association with HIV and hebatitis? Does this is the authors objective? How could you relate it? Response – Thank you for the observation. Since there were no enough reports to discuss the association between malaria and the studied vaccine related viruses we thought discussing the relationships between malaria and other viral agents could shed some light on the relationships between malaria and measles/YFV. Since the reviewer is not satisfied with this, we have now expunged the sentences and the references. Comment - Are you sure does the region shared 30% of malaria associated death? Response – Thank you for the comment. Based on the reference WHO report cited, the total malaria-related deaths in West Africa Region is more than 30%. Nigeria alone accounts for 25%. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Plos One Revision2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268080.r004
31 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-21-27941R2Malaria transmission in Africa: its relationship with yellow fever and measlesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oyeyemi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript for review to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if the authors revise it to address a critical point previously raised by the reviewer. According to reviewer #2, the authors must specify the exact statistical output of P-value rather than indicated as < 0.05 in the table 1. This information is critical to the reliability of the data analysis. Please submit your revised manuscript by March 10. 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, Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #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 #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 #2: All most all points I raised as a reviewer were satisfactorily addressed by the authors. I congratulate the authors on this achievement. However, there is only one major issue that I need to bring up again. 1. Why did the authors failed to specify the exact statistical output of P-value rather than indicated as < 0.05 in the table 1? Unless and until the author provides a satisfactory explanation for why the P-value was not indicated, I will be skeptical of the data analysis's reliability. ****** 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 #2: Yes:** Tegegne Eshetu [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.0268080.r005
Revision 3
1 Apr 2022 Author Response Why did the authors failed to specify the exact statistical output of P-value rather than indicated as < 0.05 in the table 1? Unless and until the author provides a satisfactory explanation for why the P-value was not indicated, I will be skeptical of the data analysis's reliability. Response – Thank you for your comment. We merely supplied the level of significance (P<0.05 or P>0.05) in the previous version. However, we have now provided the exact P value as requested by the reviewer. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments R2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268080.r006
18 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-21-27941R3Malaria transmission in Africa: its relationship with yellow fever and measlesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oyeyemi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript for review to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if the authors revise it to address critical points raised by the reviewer. According to reviewer, there are some specific areas where further improvements would be of substantial benefit to the readers. A copy of the reviewers’ comments was included for your information. Please submit your revised manuscript by April 30 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, Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #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 #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 #2: First and foremost, I'd like to thank the authors for their success in producing a scientifically soundable article while taking into account my previous comments and suggestions. Having said that, I'd like to make a suggestion for the authors in table one. In table one, when the author made a change after considering my previous comment, the p-value was written as o.ooo, which is not a scientifically sound way of writing. To the best of my knowledge, P-value cannot be written as 0.000 as you did in table 1. Even if the statistical software produces a p value of 0.000, the exact value cannot be equals to zero. You can verify it by double-clicking on it, which will display the actual value of P. In such cases, P value should be expressed as < o.oo1. The logic behind for such expression is the observed value can never be zero due to the presence of random error, which is unavoidable and uncontrollable. Thus, I recommend the authors to express the P-value as < 0.001 in table 1 rather than simply put 0.000. However, it should only be done if and only if the author agrees with my comment. ****** 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 #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.0268080.r007
Revision 4
18 Apr 2022 Author Response Response to reviewer Reviewer #2: First and foremost, I'd like to thank the authors for their success in producing a scientifically soundable article while taking into account my previous comments and suggestions. Having said that, I'd like to make a suggestion for the authors in table one. In table one, when the author made a change after considering my previous comment, the p-value was written as o.ooo, which is not a scientifically sound way of writing. To the best of my knowledge, P-value cannot be written as 0.000 as you did in table 1. Even if the statistical software produces a p value of 0.000, the exact value cannot be equals to zero. You can verify it by double-clicking on it, which will display the actual value of P. In such cases, P value should be expressed as < o.oo1. The logic behind for such expression is the observed value can never be zero due to the presence of random error, which is unavoidable and uncontrollable. Thus, I recommend the authors to express the P-value as < 0.001 in table 1 rather than simply put 0.000. However, it should only be done if and only if the author agrees with my comment. Response – Thank you for this important comment. We agree with the reviewer on this point. So, we have now replaced P value 0.000 with <0.001 as suggested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments R3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268080.r008
22 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor Malaria transmission in Africa: its relationship with yellow fever and measles PONE-D-21-27941R4 Dear Dr. Oyeyemi, 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, Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268080.r009

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 .