Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 13, 2022
Decision Letter - Masoud Foroutan, Editor

PONE-D-22-31301Survey on the association between Toxoplasma gondii infection and violent behavior in inmatesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alvarado-Esquivel,

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 Feb 10 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.

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,

Masoud Foroutan, Ph.D; Assistant Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please provide additional information regarding the considerations made for the prisoners included in this study. For instance, please discuss whether participants were able to opt out of the study and whether individuals who did not participate receive the same treatment offered to participants.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to Author:

This paper deals with to determine association between T. gondii seropositivity and violent behavior in 128 inmates in Durango, Mexico. Results in this study show that infection with T. gondii is not associated with violence in inmates in Durango, Mexico. It is a quite interesting research field, but observations (factors) and methods related to assessing effects are not enough suitable. To the reviewer's point of view, it is a well-written, well-organized, and well-structured paper. Hence, it can be published and for improve your manuscript I suggested below comments:

Abstract:

• Start the results with some descriptive statistics (mean ± SD, N (%), etc.) for participate (128 inmates).

• Please report more statistical results (coefficients, 95% CI’s, P-value, etc.) in abstract. Statistical results of associations.

• The actual P-value* should be expressed (P=.04) rather than expressing a statement of inequality (P<.05), unless P<.001.

• Methods: Are you measured the costs? Mention to it.

• What mean the “robust association”?

Materials & Methods:

• All acronyms/abbreviations must be explained in parenthesis after their first occurrence within each standalone section of a paper (abstract, main text, acknowledgements, figures, and tables). If any acronyms/abbreviations are used in the main text (excluding tables and figures), please compile them in an "Abbreviations" section at the end of the paper.

• Are you test the normality distribution for your quantities responses (HCR-20, Crimes, and AGO score). How you test the normality of data?

• Why did you not use multiple logistic regression analysis to examine the adjusted effects of confounding variables such as age and gender? Reported coefficients are crude effects and the effect of confounders in your study (statistical analyses) is ignored, which causes results with error [1].

Results:

• Report means of quantities variables with standard deviations in the text.

“Mean ± SD”

• For univariate analysis, please prepared a socio-demographic table (with more factors) for participates by violent category (violent and non-violent). Then compare the means or frequencies between two groups.

• Tables: Please mark results the comparisons by *,**,¶ … for indicate related test and p-value below the tables. Describe the signs below the table.

• Table 1: P-values conducted from which statistical analysis? OR or Chi-squre/Fisher-exact tests? Mention to it below the table (*, †, ¶, etc.).

• Table 1: ORs with zero cell counts can be calculated by correction [2]. Please recalculate the ORs and 95% CI’s for all tables with zero cell counts.

• Table 2: P-values conducted from which statistical analysis? Describe to it below the table by some sign (*, †, ¶, etc.).

Discussion:

• The content of this section is repetitive and lacks useful information to conclude the study. The conclusion is poor.

References:

1. Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. Vol. 398. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

2. Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Principles of biostatistics, Brooks. Cole, Belmont[Google Sch. 2000;

Reviewer #2: The authors performed the association between T. gondii IgG seropositivity and violent behavior in inmates. The topic is interesting. The method is not novel and the number of participants is small.

Please imply the limitation of your study in a limitation section, before final conclusion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Durango, Dgo. Mexico. January 27, 2023.

Dear Editor,

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript that has been modified according to the reviewers’ comments. In addition, please find below our response to each of the reviewers’ comments on a point-by-point basis. The revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. We provided the data set as a supplementary file.

We appreciate the valuable comments of the reviewers, and we hope the revised manuscript may have more success for publication in the journal PLOS ONE.

Kind regards,

Dr. Cosme Alvarado-Esquivel.

Laboratorio de Investigación Biomédica

Facultad de Medicina y Nutrición

Avenida Universidad S/N.

34000 Durango, Dgo. Mexico.

Tel/Fax.: 0052 618 8 271200

Email: alvaradocosme@yahoo.com

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

The manuscript was revised regarding the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Please provide additional information regarding the considerations made for the prisoners included in this study. For instance, please discuss whether participants were able to opt out of the study and whether individuals who did not participate receive the same treatment offered to participants.

Information about the option to opt out of the study and treatment offered to inmates who did not participate was added (lines 152-153).

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

We have no grant numbers in our university.

4. 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.

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.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail.

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

Data set was provided as a supplemental file.

No ethical or legal restrictions to sharing the data publicly exist.

Thank you for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Abstract:

1. Start the results with some descriptive statistics (mean ± SD, N (%), etc.) for participate (128 inmates).

Information about mean age ± SD and range was added (line 28).

2, Please report more statistical results (coefficients, 95% CI’s, P-value, etc.) in abstract. Statistical results of associations.

More statistical results were reported (lines 38-40).

3. The actual P-value* should be expressed (P=.04) rather than expressing a statement of inequality (P<.05), unless P<.001.

The P value was expressed as P=0.55 (line 40).

4. Methods: Are you measured the costs? Mention to it.

Information about the costs was added (lines 119-120).

5. What mean the “robust association”?

The word “robust” was not used.

Materials & Methods:

6. All acronyms/abbreviations must be explained in parenthesis after their first occurrence within each standalone section of a paper (abstract, main text, acknowledgements, figures, and tables). If any acronyms/abbreviations are used in the main text (excluding tables and figures), please compile them in an "Abbreviations" section at the end of the paper.

A list of abbreviations was added (lines 233-239).

7. Are you test the normality distribution for your quantities responses (HCR-20, Crimes, and AGO score). How you test the normality of data?

Normality was tested for AGQ scores, and information of the test used was added (lines 143-145).

8. Why did you not use multiple logistic regression analysis to examine the adjusted effects of confounding variables such as age and gender? Reported coefficients are crude effects and the effect of confounders in your study (statistical analyses) is ignored, which causes results with error [1].

Logistic regression analysis was added (lines 140-143 and 177-178).

Results:

9. Report means of quantities variables with standard deviations in the text.

“Mean ± SD”

Means were reported with standard deviations (lines 39, 171-172).

10. For univariate analysis, please prepared a socio-demographic table (with more factors) for participates by violent category (violent and non-violent). Then compare the means or frequencies between two groups.

A new table with sociodemographic characteristics of the study population was added and mentioned in the text (lines 120-121).

11. Tables: Please mark results the comparisons by *,**,¶ … for indicate related test and p-value below the tables. Describe the signs below the table.

Signs to indicate related tests and P values were added to the Tables.

12. Table 1: P-values conducted from which statistical analysis? OR or Chi-squre/Fisher-exact tests? Mention to it below the table (*, †, ¶, etc.).

Signs to indicate related tests and P values were added to the Tables.

13. Table 1: ORs with zero cell counts can be calculated by correction [2]. Please recalculate the ORs and 95% CI’s for all tables with zero cell counts.

Odds ratios with zero counts were recalculated by correction.

14. Table 2: P-values conducted from which statistical analysis? Describe to it below the table by some sign (*, †, ¶, etc.).

Signs to indicate related tests and P values were added to the Tables.

Discussion:

15. The content of this section is repetitive and lacks useful information to conclude the study. The conclusion is poor.

Repetitive information in the Discussion section was deleted.

Further discussion of our results was added (lines 214-220).

The conclusion was modified (lines 228-231).

Thank you for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

1. Please imply the limitation of your study in a limitation section, before final conclusion.

A section regarding the limitations of the study was added (lines 221-225).

Thank you for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript.

Decision Letter - Masoud Foroutan, Editor

PONE-D-22-31301R1Survey on the association between Toxoplasma gondii infection and violent behavior in inmatesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alvarado-Esquivel,

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 Apr 13 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.

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,

Masoud Foroutan, Ph.D; Assistant Professor

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The changes in odds ratio values are shown in Table 2. However, the calculations and results of some ORs are not clear. For example, in the first row, the predicted value (OR = 0.5*105.5/6.35*17.5=0.4673) is 0.4637, but the reported value does not match it. Please explain to me how you can calculate this odds ratio.

Reviewer #2: The authors revised the manuscript sufficiently according to the comments. In my opinion, it can be acceptable at the current form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 2

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

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.

References were reviewed and it is complete and correct. No retracted papers were found.

Thank you for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript.

Reviewer #1: The changes in odds ratio values are shown in Table 2. However, the calculations and results of some ORs are not clear. For example, in the first row, the predicted value (OR = 0.5*105.5/6.35*17.5=0.4673) is 0.4637, but the reported value does not match it. Please explain to me how you can calculate this odds ratio.

OR with zero values were recalculated and corrected.

Thank you for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers Tg-Violence-3-PO.docx
Decision Letter - Masoud Foroutan, Editor

Survey on the association between Toxoplasma gondii infection and violent behavior in inmates

PONE-D-22-31301R2

Dear Dr. Alvarado-Esquivel,

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,

Masoud Foroutan, Ph.D; Assistant Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Masoud Foroutan, Editor

PONE-D-22-31301R2

Survey on the association between Toxoplasma gondii infection and violent behavior in inmates

Dear Dr. Alvarado-Esquivel:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Masoud Foroutan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .