PONE-D-23-00829SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on environmental surfaces in COVID-19 wardsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

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.

• Compact abstract and add some results.
• Discussion is very poor, improve it.
• Provide gel pictures as supporting information.
• provide primer details used throughout work
• provide systematic flow-chat of work for clear understanding 
• What is the evidence of samples taken from hospital? The reviewer concerned about the sample collection. Please enlist all the samples taken for analysis from hospital and present their results in tabular form.
• Moreover, sample taken from surface of all wards immediately after disinfection spray or not?
• Quantitative real-time reverse transcription 30 PCR (qRT-PCR) methods were used to confirm the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA. During analysis DNA amplification graphs generated as well as pictures must be reported to support the results.
• What is the scenario of COVID test of staff working in represented wards of hospital?
• The reviewer also wonders about the statistical analysis of the article. It’s better to presents better in tabular form with appropriate tools but tables are missing in submitted manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 15 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,

Sadia Ilyas, 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. 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.

3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer-1

In the present manuscript, the authors monitor the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA among hospital environment surfaces. It is an interesting topic and its findings recommends disinfection measures, personal protection and hygiene practice to lessen the burden of viral infection at hospitals. However, there are certain queries that must be address before taken further process of publication.

1. What is the evidence of samples taken from hospital? The reviewer concerned about the sample collection. Please enlist all the samples taken for analysis from hospital and present their results in tabular form.

2. Moreover, sample taken from surface of all wards immediately after disinfection spray or not?

3. Quantitative real-time reverse transcription 30 PCR (qRT-PCR) methods were used to confirm the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA. During analysis DNA amplification graphs generated as well as pictures must be reported to support the results.

4. What is the scenario of COVID test of staff working in represented wards of hospital?

5. The reviewer also wonders about the statistical analysis of the article. It’s better to presents better in tabular form with appropriate tools but tables are missing in submitted manuscript.

6. This reviewer could not understand what new outcome can be drawn from the entire workout. Even without doing this study, all the said conclusions are traditionally known. What is the novelty of this article?

7. At last, according to the reviewer, the content of this manuscript is very poor and has nothing new to know for the readers of this journal. Highlight the novelty of research.

Reviewer-2

This study is interesting yet a kind of confirmatory research; however, the study design and significance are not comprehensible and hard to understand.

Additionally, the writing and referencing is not of a decent quality. Overall, this paper does not meet the stringent quality criteria of PLOS ONE.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: In the present manuscript, the authors monitor the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA among hospital environment surfaces. It is an interesting topic and its findings recommends disinfection measures, personal protection and hygiene practice to lessen the burden of viral infection at hospitals. However, there are certain queries that must be address before taken further process of publication.

1. What is the evidence of samples taken from hospital? The reviewer concerned about the sample collection. Please enlist all the samples taken for analysis from hospital and present their results in tabular form.

2. Moreover, sample taken from surface of all wards immediately after disinfection spray or not?

3. Quantitative real-time reverse transcription 30 PCR (qRT-PCR) methods were used to confirm the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA. During analysis DNA amplification graphs generated as well as pictures must be reported to support the results.

4. What is the scenario of COVID test of staff working in represented wards of hospital?

5. The reviewer also wonders about the statistical analysis of the article. It’s better to presents better in tabular form with appropriate tools but tables are missing in submitted manuscript.

6. This reviewer could not understand what new outcome can be drawn from the entire workout. Even without doing this study, all the said conclusions are traditionally known. What is the novelty of this article?

7. At last, according to the reviewer, the content of this manuscript is very poor and has nothing new to know for the readers of this journal. Highlight the novelty of research.

Reviewer #2: This study is interesting yet a kind of confirmatory research; however, the study design and significance are not comprehensible and hard to understand.

Additionally, the writing and referencing is not of a decent quality. Overall, this paper does not meet the stringent quality criteria of PLOS ONE.

**********

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.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on environmental surfaces in COVID-19 wards

PONE-D-23-00829R1

Dear Dr. Tao Zhao,

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,

Sadia Ilyas, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: