PONE-D-23-36366Evaluation of cattle farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in RwandaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shyaka,

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 23 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.

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,

Raúl Alejandro Alegría-Morán, 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. 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:

Please put particular emphasis on the level of detail of material and methods, more specifically regarding the statistical analysis.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: 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: This paper is well written, and the topic is relevant.

The use of the mean KAP score as a cutoff to differentiate good and bad, can be difficult for future reference. It can be logical for this specific study but overall difficult to make comparisons with other similar studies.

Table 2: Second and third items in the first column are interchanged, correction is needed.

“How long do you travel to reach a water source from your farm or stable”, need to be the second and “Where do you get the water you use in the farm from?”, the third point.

Reviewer #2: The study appears to be well conducted, with an appropriate sample size, and executed correctly. However, it is recommended to order the methodology from general to particular, and in each part, provide as many details as possible.

The statistical analysis is simple and appears to have been carried out well. However, it is essential that the statistical analysis be explained in the methodology and not in the results. In addition, the assumptions of the analyses and the names of the procedures in SAS need to be detailed.

Finally, the manuscript presents various but small errors in the writing, so it is recommended to review. Some comments are found in the following lines.

ABSTRACT

Line 38. It is suggested not to use acronyms in keywords. Additionally, Antimicrobial resistance and Antimicrobial Use are already in the keyword list. I also suggest changing the country in the keywords and using a word that contextualizes your work, such as cattle farming.

Line 68. I suggest rewriting the phrase "as well as in food animals and their products" to "and food animals and their products."

METHODS

Lines 77 to 85. In the Study Setting, I suggest being concise in saying where the study will be carried out and the characteristics of choosing those places rather than providing data on the organization of the country.

Lines 87-88. I suggest writing: "Map of the study area with the interviewed farm locations (red points) in the Kayonza, Gatsibo, and Nyagatare districts."

Line 93: Study population and sampling strategy: In which statistic program was the calculation of the sample of interviews carried out? It should be clarified.

Line 96: I suggest changing "with reference to" to "concerning."

103-104: I suggest changing to "Finally, Excel's RAND function randomly selected three cells per sector (18 cells) and three villages per cell (54 villages)."

107-127: It is preferable to summarize the six items of the survey in tables.

109-110: I suggest editing "The research team designed and reviewed the data collection tool internally for content, understanding, and relevance."

124: The sentence "This entailed questions on how the interviewees felt or thought about topics related to AMR" generates confusion, so I suggest removing

129: I think that "Data collection procedure" should be included at the beginning of "Data collection tool and validation" since it provides the context of the data collection. Then, you can continue with the survey's structure.

140-157: I consider it important, after establishing in which statistical program the work was carried out, to mention the SAS procedures or packages that were used to obtain the results (data summary, associations, etc.). On the other hand, I consider that the description of analyses that were carried out should be described in the same order in which the results are presented. For example, descriptive statistics are mentioned near the end of the statistical analysis, but it is the first result. On the other hand, line 299 mentions a logistic regression analysis, which should be explained in detail in data analysis, including the procedure used in SAS and dependent and independent variables. The same goes for Pearson on line 268.

RESULTS

In the results section, it is essential to explain in the text what all the tables contain before describing them. For example, on line 160, it would be essential to write: “The socio-demographic data is summarized in Table 1” and then write the description of the Table.

Another comment is that “Figure (Fig.)” is summarized, but not the word Table, so I suggest keeping both without abbreviation for the entire text.

165: Correct the title of Table 1: Socio-demographics (data or variables) of cattle farmers

In Tables 1 and 2, it is important to be clear in the titles of each column. There must be a header in the columns where the response levels are described. In the column where the number of farmers per level and their percentage are described, it must also have a header.

DISCUSSION

343-344: change "use of" to just "use".

351-152: Before these lines, it is stated that AMU is due to different diseases. Then biosafety with the AMU is mentioned. It would be important to make the link between diseases, lack of biosecurity, and AMU here.

394-395: Which studies?

420-423: It is important that when reference is made to other studies, the context of those studies is provided (For example, place and type of rancher)

Conclusion

456-457: In the sentence “Our findings showed a considerable discrepancy in the KAP levels of farmers in terms of gender, education level, district, and other sociodemographic characteristics,” it would be necessary to mention those discrepancies briefly.

464-469: In my opinion, I think that ..this part of the conclusion escapes the proposed objectives

**********

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: Kebede Amenu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniel Cartes

**********

[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.

PONE-D-23-36366R1Evaluation of cattle farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in RwandaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shyaka,

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 take in particular consideration what was highlighted by reviewer 2 regarding this point: "You should avoid formulating sentences that are too short on lines 102 and 161 to 168. Also, on line 161 you must delete (")"

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 13 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.

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,

Raúl Alejandro Alegría-Morán, 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 #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: 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: No

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 revision this manuscript: Evaluation of cattle farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in Rwanda, acceptable

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with responses to the comments. You should avoid formulating sentences that are too short on lines 102 and 161 to 168. Also, on line 161 you must delete (")

**********

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: Yes: Kebede Amenu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniel Cartes

**********

[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.

Evaluation of cattle farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in Rwanda

PONE-D-23-36366R2

Dear Dr. Shyaka,

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,

Raúl Alejandro Alegría-Morán, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): We greatly appreciate the inclusion of the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers. It is a very good manuscript and the incorporation of these improved the overall quality and understanding of the work.

Reviewers' comments: