Dear Dr. Adamu,

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.

2. The conclusion should based on the aim and objectives of the research

3. There also are errors in the references that should be corrected.

4. Other comments are in the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2023 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.

• 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,

Bilal Sulaiman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. The reviewer has made comments that need to be addressed.

2. The conclusion should based on the aim and objectives of the research

3. There also are errors in the references that should be corrected.

4. Other comments are in the manuscript.

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall comment:

The manuscript entitled “Prevalence and pattern of adverse events following COVID 19 vaccination among adult population in Sokoto metropolis, northwest, Nigeria” evaluated the prevalence and pattern of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after receiving COVID-19 vaccine among the adult population in Sokoto metropolis, North-west, Nigeria. This is an interesting and well written cross-sectional study which included 230 adults in Sokoto metropolis who received COVID-19 vaccine. The manuscript is an interesting and well written. The authors showed that up to 66.3% of the adverse reactions were mild, 15.2% of the respondents had severe reactions of which 22.7% were admitted to a health facility. The development of AEFI was linked to the presence of an underlying medical condition, a previous history of AEFI, and a history of drug reaction. The paper seems well organized.

Specific Comments: It would be helpful for the authors to respond to the following observation and revise the manuscript.

1. The title spells ‘COVID-19’ as ‘COVID 19’ whereas the remaining body it spells as ‘COVID-19’. WHO used Coronavirus disease as COVID-19. So the title should be revised.

2. Abstract: The last sentence of the Result section says that the development of AEFI was linked to the absence of an underlying medical condition………….. I think the it is better to interpret the result as ‘The development of AEFI was linked to the presence of an underlying medical condition……..’

3. Materials and Method: The duration/ time period of conducting the survey, inclusion or exclusion criteria should be include.

4. Results:

A) The author mentioned that 230 participants were included in the study. In Table 1, the sum of the Age sub-group shows 231.

B) Figure 1: The total number of respondents is shown as 231.

C) Figure 2: Y axis needs label.

D) Table 2: Number of AEFIs experienced respondents is shown 184 (n). There no explanation why this number decreased from 230 to 184.

E) Table 3: Under In the middle column, the total respondents equals 231 (instead of 230). In the right most column (Test Statistic) the box is left empty.

5. The authors have designated the AEFI as mild, moderate and severe. But they did not define the basis of this classification.

**********

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:  Md. Mustafizur Rahman

**********

[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: Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine AEF in sokoto-editor (1).docx

Dear Dr. Adamu,

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 Jun 29 2023 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.

• 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,

Mathumalar Loganathan Fahrni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, the current manuscript requires several edits, which I hope you can complete and are then able to fulfil all the requirements.

1-Please provide study limitation, study strength, study implication and future recommendation as headings. The given background is inclusive. Please provide the hypothesis and problem statement.

2-Please include the rationale to study.Please organize the methodology and include headings such as eligibility criteria, inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3-Please explain the study design in detail.

4-As the study is cross-sectional, kindly provide a Strobe statement and strobe checklist.

5-Why was the GPower 3.1 tool used to determine the sample size? What were the advantages compared to Power and Sample Size Calculation (PASS) or OpenEpi? Justify the method of calculation. The total population of those who received COVID-19 vaccine at the time of the study was less than 10,000- please justify this figure and the relatively small sample size requirement estimate.

6- Rephrase the estimate of 90% and the statement "Using the above two formulae, sample size of 207 participants was estimated. A response rate of 90% was anticipated, thus the final sample size (nf) was adjusted to 230, by dividing the calculated sample size (207) by the anticipated response rate (0.9); therefore, 230 study participants were enrolled into the study". Provide references.

7-Please include questionnaire administration as a subheading and support the pre-test statements with references. Please provide provide the questionnaire as supplementary file.

8- Please explain and rewrite clearly the following statement, "The questionnaire was pretested among adult men and women who received COVID-19 vaccines from PHC Yar Akija. Necessary amendments were made thereafter, and the instrument was found valid. Personnel used for data collection comprised the researchers with the help of three research assistants. Data collection was done using the questionnaire described above. The questionnaire was designed and deployed to a web-based account created on https://kobo.humanitarianresponse.info. The deployed questionnaire was then accessed by downloading Open Data Kit (ODK) app on Android devices and was used for data collection. "

Please elaborate on the tool used, its benefits (web based?), and provide information on PHC Yar Akija's population demographics.

9-Please add the heading, "statistical analyses". The current provided limitation does not address all bias. Please provide in detail sampling bias, selection bias, recall bias, measurement bias. Please provide timeline of data collection.

10- Rewrite sections of the discussion and compare with findings of available literature.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Initial recommendation to the Editor: The manuscript can be accepted with minor revision as shown in the following comments:

To the authors:

Thank you for properly addressing the previous queries. Here, during careful checking the manuscript I have found some more areas to be clarified by the authors. I guess you would find these as minor revision.

#1 Figure 1. Y-axis is missing label. Even the values are inserted, it is better to add y-axis label.

#2, Page 11, “N= Total population of adults who received COVID-19 from the 3 selected health facilities (HFs) = 1300”

I think instead of ‘COVID-19’ it will be ‘COVID-19 vaccine’

#3, a) Table 3: In the last column, the symbol is missing, probably. It would be ‘chi-square’. Pease ensure the symbol is typed correctly without any missing.

b) It is not clearly mentioned in the Table by which statistical parameters were determined to estimate the association. Please confirm whether you used ‘OR’ or ‘Chi square’. Then confirm the findings of statistical analysis of the data shown in this Table 3.

Reviewer #2: 1-Please organize the methodology and include heading such as eligibility criteria, inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.

2-Please provide heading of study design and explain in details.

3-As the study is cross-sectional, kindly provide a strobe statement and strobe checklist.

4-Why you did not use GPower 3.1 tool to determine the sample size? What about Power and Sample Size Calculation (PASS) or OpenEpi? Justify your manual method of calculation. how you know that total population of those who received COVID-19 vaccine at the time of the study was less than 10,000? Please give heading of sample size and check your calculations and formulas and explain and justify it. Your sample size is too small and need to justify it.

5- There is lot of confusion in your sample size caluclation why did you estimate 90% as per your statement "Using the above two formulae, sample size of 207 participants was estimated. A response rate of

90% was anticipated, thus the final sample size (nf) was adjusted to 230, by dividing the calculated

sample size (207) by the anticipated response rate (0.9); therefore, 230 study participants were

enrolled into the study"

Why did you estimate it and why did you adjust it? Please justify rational and provide some reference on your methodology. Please provide with minimum 3-4 reference on rational about estimation of 90%? Did you estimate before the study starts and why 90%? its a high number. Please justify in details with reference.

6-Please include heading of questionnaire and even though its a pretest, there must be a literature support. Please explain and provide details. Please provide provide the questionnaire as supplementary file.

7- please explain and write clear the following statement "The questionnaire was pretested among adult men and women who received COVID-19 vaccines

from PHC Yar Akija. Necessary amendments were made thereafter, and the instrument was found

valid.

Personnel used for data collection comprised the researchers with the help of three research

assistants.

Data collection was done using the questionnaire described above. The questionnaire was designed

and deployed to a web-based account created on https://kobo.humanitarianresponse.info. The

deployed questionnaire was then accessed by downloading Open Data Kit (ODK) app on Android

devices and was used for data collection. "

Please elaborate the tool used and what are the benefits of web based accounts? There is still no information on PHC Yar Akija. It is confusing.

Please add the heading of statistical analysis and explain it in the methodology.

Please provide study limitation, study strength, study implication and future recommendation as heading and explain.

The given background is inclusive. Please provide testing hypothesis. Please include problem background and explain in details the problem.

Please include heading of theoretical background and provide rational to your study.

The current provided limitation does not address all bias. Please provide in detail sampling bias, selection bias, recall bias, measurement bias.

Please provide timeline of data collection.

I have read your discussion and your discussion is weak and does not compare your finding with provide available scientific literature. Rewrite your discussion and include citation with updated literature using data from countries of other parts of world. Please write your discussion according to given objective of your study.

**********

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:  Dr. Md. Mustafizur Rahman

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

**********

[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-22-29819 Review report v-2.docx

Dear Dr. Habibullah Adamu,

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 refer to attached document.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 22 2023 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.

• 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 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,

Mathumalar Loganathan Fahrni

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.]

[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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.docx

Dear Dr. Adamu,

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 Jul 06 2024 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.

• 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,

Francesco Sessa, Ph.D., MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers raised several points that should be improved before publishing the manuscript. Please, provide a point-by-point rebuttal letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #3: I read the article carefully, I think it is interesting and useful also for emerging countries.

However, I believe it needs a greater international scope.

- a benchmark should be done with other similar studies published in other countries

- the previous suggestion would help to expand the bibliography which appears very limited

Reviewer #4: The introduction Lacks a clear statement of the study's hypothesis and specific aim. The authors should explicitly state their hypothesis and the primary objective of their research. For instance, the hypothesis could be: "The study hypothesizes that a significant proportion of COVID-19 vaccine recipients in Sokoto Metropolis experience adverse events following immunization (AEFI), with specific demographic and clinical factors influencing these events." The aim should be clearly articulated, such as: "The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence and pattern of AEFI following COVID-19 vaccination among adults in Sokoto Metropolis and to identify factors associated with these adverse events."

The authors should detail the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample more comprehensively. For example, specify the exact criteria for inclusion (e.g., age range, health status) and exclusion (e.g., specific medical conditions, previous severe reactions to vaccines).

The term "adverse events following immunization (AEFI)" is mentioned but not clearly defined in the methods section. The authors should provide a precise definition and examples of what constitutes an AEFI in the context of this study.

The timeline for data collection is not specified. The authors should include the start and end dates of data collection to provide context for the findings and to account for any changes in vaccination policies or external factors during the study period.

The authors claim that their data is representative of the entire population, but this assertion needs justification. They should explain why the chosen sample and methods are representative of the broader population of Sokoto Metropolis, considering demographic and geographic diversity.

Discuss the possibility of sampling bias due to the selection of participants from specific health facilities and the use of phone interviews, which may exclude those without access to phones or those who are less willing to participate.

The authors should consider the impact of their sampling method on the generalizability of the findings. For example, patients from different socioeconomic backgrounds or those who received vaccinations at different times or locations might have different experiences.

Since the data rely on self-reported information collected via phone calls, there is a risk of recall bias. Participants might not accurately remember or report their experiences, especially if significant time has passed since their vaccination.

There might be inconsistencies in how adverse events are reported and recorded. The authors should discuss any steps taken to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the data collected through the questionnaires.

The conclusion summarizes the main findings effectively. However, it should reiterate the importance of addressing the study's limitations and suggest directions for future research

**********

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 #3: Yes:  Matteo Bolcato

Reviewer #4: 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.

Dear Dr. Adamu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: After several rounds of revision, the manuscript has substantially improved. I believe that the paper is suitable for publication, pending the minor modifications suggested by Reviewer #3 and improvements to the reference section. The authors should consider adding the following important references: DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11060955; DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1308768; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-35653-z; DOI: 10.3390/jcm10245876. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 25 2024 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.

• 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 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,

Francesco Sessa, Ph.D., MS

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

After several rounds of revision, the manuscript has substantially improved. I believe that the paper is suitable for publication, pending the minor modifications suggested by Reviewer #3 and improvements to the reference section. The authors should consider adding the following important references: DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11060955; DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1308768; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-35653-z; DOI: 10.3390/jcm10245876.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: I have carefully read the article and believe it deserves publication. Especially after several suggestions from the reviewers, the text appears adequate and the method used robust.

I believe it could be further improved by making a brief mention of how the vaccine studied can help achieve equity of access doi: 10.3390/vaccines9060538.

It would also be important, as already indicated in the conclusions, to indicate how the information to be given to the patient is useful for compliance and fairness.

**********

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 #3: Yes:  Matteo Bolcato

**********

[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

Prevalence and pattern of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination among adult population in Sokoto metropolis, northwest, Nigeria

PONE-D-22-29819R5

Dear Dr. Adamu,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Francesco Sessa, Ph.D., MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Following a thorough and productive revision process, the manuscript is now ready to be published.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: the authors have carefully followed the suggestions of the reviewers, in my opinion the text is now publishable

**********

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 #3: Yes:  Matteo Bolcato

**********