Estimation of the lost productivity to the GDP and the national cost of correcting visual impairment from refractive error in Kenya

Shadrack Muma; Kovin Shunmugam Naidoo; Rekha Hansraj

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300799

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 11, 2023
21 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, Editor PONE-D-23-29248Estimation of the lost productivity to the GDP and the national cost of correcting visual impairment from refractive error in KenyaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Muma, 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: Before acceptance please ensure the following has been addressed: Address the queries of each review as clearly as possible. Undertake extensive English Language edit of the entire manuscript ============================== 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'. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 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. 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, Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, OD, MPH, PhD 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 this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. Additional Editor Comments: Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Three independent reviewers have suggested a number of corrections to be made to improve the manuscript. There is the additional concern about the presentation of the manuscript in terms of the English language. I therefore invite you to review the manuscript and submit a revised version. Also, rework the references to comply with the journal's guidelines/style. [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: No Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: Thank you for your submission. The paper is relevant and highlights the importance of accessibility to vision services and optical corrective devices and the inequality that exists across the world. However, review of the paper with a recommendation of major review, is required. Please see the main points below and detail comments in the manuscript: As English is not your first language the paper would benefit form a proof-reading by a native speaker or a proof-reading service. Some sentences are formulated in an unclear fashion or are incomplete. Try to avoid terms like cadres or refraction points. Alternatives have been provided in comments in the manuscript. References should be reviewed and formatted in accordance to the publishers guidance. Some of them are incomplete, some have invalid links attached. Organisations such as WHO should be written in full in reference list. In body of the manuscript, when referring to organisations, e.g. WHO and others, first mention name in full, then abbreviate. Some of the estimations and calculations could be explained clearer. The various ratios and recommendations should be referenced. Think about how you would integrate telemedicine in your vision centres as in optometry, it has a limited role and can be used for triaging the patient, obtaining basic history 7 symptoms and for follow ups with the patient. This also would require a infrastructure (phones, internet for video calls with patient and other colleagues). If you are referring to telemedicine hubs and for eyecare professionals to communicate between themselves in regards to a patient/patient presentation or course of treatment or management, please specify that. Reviewer #2: I find the topic interesting and important to the eye care services in Kenya. From my point of view, the paper needs to be revised and improved. First, the authors don´t provide a definition for Refractive error. That is a critical point since that will have an impact on the age group that should be considered to estimate productivity losses. It is unclear why they decided to use two age groups 16-50 and 16-60. Why should people above the age of 50 y.o be considered unproductive if the retirement age in the country is 60 y.o. They also don´t provide a definition for labour force participation and employment rate which I believe would be useful to do. Second, they use disability weights to measure productivity losses without providing a good rational to do it. Disability weights and productivity losses should not be seen as substitutes. They measure different aspects of life. Disability weights represent the magnitude of health loss while productivity losses represent “the production loss due to illness, disability and death of productive persons, both paid and unpaid”. Third, it is not clear why are they using the all population (either 16-50 or 16-60) and not just the population who have refractive error (which will vary with the prevalence rate of refractive error in Kenya). Forth, I think there is a mistake with the reference of the disability weights used in the paper. Salomon´s et al (ref 6) report disability weights of 0.003 for mild visual impairment, 0.031 for moderate visual impairment and 0.184 for severe visual impairment. The disability weights used in the paper are proposed by WHO. Authors should explain why they did not use the latest disability weights figures. Fifth, there is something wrong with table 1 and table 2 (and with the way productivity losses are estimated). The product between number of people (Column 1 population aged 16-50 years) and disability weights (Column 2 population aged 16-50 years) can not directly produce a value expressed in USD. Finally, the national cost estimation and cost benefit analysis are not well describe and needs to be revised. The reference list doesn´t follow common reference styles. Reviewer #3: The study is interesting and makes significant contribution to the economics of uncorrected refractive errors in Kenya The study will require language editing Clarify how the average income of the normal sighted caregiver aged 16 – 60 years was calculated Line 130 – 135. Why was the assumption of time spent in doing refraction leave out the cadre of optometrists? Line 135 – 139. Are optometrists classified under the clinical refractionist cadre? Please explain to provide clarity. Referencing style should follow journal’s guidelines. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-29248_reviewer final.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300799.r001
Revision 1
8 Jan 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Ogbomo (Academic Editor – Plos One) Detailed below are the revisions made to the article titled ‘Estimation of the lost productivity to the GDP and the national cost of correcting visual impairment from refractive error in Kenya (Manuscript. No. PONE-D-23-29248)’. The changes were made based on the comments/suggestions of Reviewer #1, Reviewer #2, Reviewer #3 and the Academic Editor. All changes have been tracked on the revised manuscript. The authors’ responses to queries received are formatted through word track changes. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Before acceptance please ensure the following has been addressed: This is noted Address the queries of each review as clearly as possible. This is noted and has been addressed across the document Undertake extensive English Language edit of the entire manuscript Editing has been undertaken across the document Reviewer #1: Thank you for your submission. The paper is relevant and highlights the importance of accessibility to vision services and optical corrective devices and the inequality that exists across the world. However, review of the paper with a recommendation of major review, is required. Please see the main points below and detail comments in the manuscript: As English is not your first language the paper would benefit form a proof-reading by a native speaker or a proof-reading service. Some sentences are formulated in an unclear fashion or are incomplete. This is noted and has been addressed across the document as suggested in the reviewed manuscript Try to avoid terms like cadres or refraction points. Alternatives have been provided in comments in the manuscript. This is noted. Changes have been made across the document as suggested References should be reviewed and formatted in accordance to the publishers guidance. Some of them are incomplete, some have invalid links attached. Organisations such as WHO should be written in full in reference list. This has been addressed as suggested In body of the manuscript, when referring to organisations, e.g. WHO and others, first mention name in full, then abbreviate. Thanks. This has been revised accordingly across the document Some of the estimations and calculations could be explained clearer. This is noted and has been addressed across the document. Line 80-264 The various ratios and recommendations should be referenced. Yes the recommendations have been referenced. Line 153-156, 159-162, 237-238, 262-263 Think about how you would integrate telemedicine in your vision centres as in optometry, it has a limited role and can be used for triaging the patient, obtaining basic history 7 symptoms and for follow ups with the patient. This also would require a infrastructure (phones, internet for video calls with patient and other colleagues). If you are referring to telemedicine hubs and for eyecare professionals to communicate between themselves in regards to a patient/patient presentation or course of treatment or management, please specify that. 144-146 This is noted. “If you are referring to telemedicine hubs and for eyecare professionals to communicate between themselves in regards to a patient/patient presentation or course of treatment or management”. Yes this is what we referred to. Detailed on page 148-150 Reviewer #2: I find the topic interesting and important to the eye care services in Kenya. From my point of view, the paper needs to be revised and improved. This is noted and has been addressed as suggested First, the authors don´t provide a definition for Refractive error. That is a critical point since that will have an impact on the age group that should be considered to estimate productivity losses. The definition has been provided in line 54-55 It is unclear why they decided to use two age groups 16-50 and 16-60. This is noted. We would like to clarify that the initial estimates was based on the first study on global estimate of the cost required to address URE and the lost productivity to the GDP. However, with the advancement in the approaches used, we have made the calculations using the latest development (A Simple Method for Estimating the Economic Cost of Productivity Loss Due to Blindness and Moderate to Severe Visual Impairment by Eckert and colleagues). Therefore, this study adopts the 16-60 years only. Details are provided in line 80-92. Why should people above the age of 50 y.o be considered unproductive if the retirement age in the country is 60 y.o. The unproductive age in the study has been rectified as individuals below 16 years and those above 60 years. Line 91 They also don´t provide a definition for labour force participation and employment rate which I believe would be useful to do. This is noted. The definitions have been provided in line 108-113 Second, they use disability weights to measure productivity losses without providing a good rational to do it. Disability weights and productivity losses should not be seen as substitutes. They measure different aspects of life. Disability weights represent the magnitude of health loss while productivity losses represent “the production loss due to illness, disability and death of productive persons, both paid and unpaid”. This is noted. Based on the current estimate approach, the disability weights were not used instead the minimum wage, the affected population and reduced earnings was used as proposed in a study by Eckert and colleagues: A Simple Method for Estimating the Economic Cost of Productivity Loss Due to Blindness and Moderate to Severe Visual Impairment. Line 80-92 provides the details Third, it is not clear why are they using the all population (either 16-50 or 16-60) and not just the population who have refractive error (which will vary with the prevalence rate of refractive error in Kenya). This is noted. The current estimate is based on the 3.5 million Kenyans with URE. Line 86-92 details Forth, I think there is a mistake with the reference of the disability weights used in the paper. Salomon´s et al (ref 6) report disability weights of 0.003 for mild visual impairment, 0.031 for moderate visual impairment and 0.184 for severe visual impairment. The disability weights used in the paper are proposed by WHO. Authors should explain why they did not use the latest disability weights figures. This is noted. The disability weight approach has been eliminated with adoption of the latest formula for estimating the productivity loss. Therefore there is shift from the initial formula to the latest. Details are provided in the methodology section line 80-211 Fifth, there is something wrong with table 1 and table 2 (and with the way productivity losses are estimated). The product between number of people (Column 1 population aged 16-50 years) and disability weights (Column 2 population aged 16-50 years) can not directly produce a value expressed in USD. We agree and based on the current formula, we have made changes in line 213-226 Finally, the national cost estimation and cost benefit analysis are not well describe and needs to be revised. This has been revised as proposed in line 287-305 and line 227-272 in the revised document The reference list doesn´t follow common reference styles. This is noted and has been addressed as instructed Reviewer #3: The study is interesting and makes significant contribution to the economics of uncorrected refractive errors in Kenya The study will require language editing This is noted and we have edited across the document Clarify how the average income of the normal sighted caregiver aged 16 – 60 years was calculated The minimum wage in Kenya is approximately US$ 101.505. Given that approximately 7.5% of the individuals with URE in Kenya have severe VI, we computed the annual income with an assumption that they constitute the LFPR. Details are provided on line 219-226 Line 130 – 135. Why was the assumption of time spent in doing refraction leave out the cadre of optometrists? Optometrists are core and in this study we consider them as functional clinical refractionists. The WHO outline that optometrists are well placed to address URE. Line 230-232 provides the estimates. Line 135 – 139. Are optometrists classified under the clinical refractionist cadre? Please explain to provide clarity. Yes, the details are in line 166-167 Referencing style should follow journal’s guidelines. This is noted and has been addressed under references sub-heading Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300799.r002
8 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, Editor PONE-D-23-29248R1Estimation of the lost productivity to the GDP and the national cost of correcting visual impairment from refractive error in KenyaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Muma, 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: Please address the concern of the having the recommendation in the methods section of the manuscript. The recommendation should typically be in the discussion. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 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, Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, OD, MPH, PhD, FAAO 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: As note by Reviewer 1, the recommendations noted in the methods section should typically be made in the discussion section of the manuscript if the recommendations are from the current paper. Please address these and a few other comments suggested. [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 #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 manuscript has been improved significantly - well one. There are still some mistakes in the use of language & some things like VI & URE or how to correct RE should be explained/defined. Also, look at methodology/results - study recommendations should be included in discussion not results or methodology. You can use suggestions or estimations for calculations (see comments in the text). Therefore, minor revisions are still needed. Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the all comments i raised satisfactorily. This has improved the quality of the paper ****** 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 #3: Yes: Samuel Kyei ******** [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-23-29248_R1 Final.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300799.r003
Revision 2
9 Feb 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Ogbomo (Academic Editor – Plos One) Detailed below are the revisions made to the article titled ‘Estimation of the lost productivity to the GDP and the national cost of correcting visual impairment from refractive error in Kenya (Manuscript. No. PONE-D-23-29248_R1)’. The changes were made based on the comments/suggestions of Reviewer #1, Reviewer #3 and the Academic Editor. All changes have been tracked In the revised manuscript. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please address the concern of the having the recommendation in the methods section of the manuscript. The recommendation should typically be in the discussion. This is noted and has been transferred to the discussion as proposed. Additional Editor Comments: As note by Reviewer 1, the recommendations noted in the methods section should typically be made in the discussion section of the manuscript if the recommendations are from the current paper. Please address these and a few other comments suggested. This is noted and has been corrected in the revised version line 383-386. The other comments by reviewer 1 have been addressed across the document. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been improved significantly - well one. There are still some mistakes in the use of language & some things like VI & URE or how to correct RE should be explained/defined Thank you. The suggestion has been integrated in line 55-59 and 62-64 as suggested. Also, look at methodology/results - study recommendations should be included in discussion not results or methodology. You can use suggestions or estimations for calculations (see comments in the text). Therefore, minor revisions are still needed. This is noted and such recommendations have been transferred to the discussion section line 383-386. Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the all comments i raised satisfactorily. This has improved the quality of the paper Thank you Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300799.r004
6 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, Editor Estimation of the lost productivity to the GDP and the national cost of correcting visual impairment from refractive error in Kenya PONE-D-23-29248R2 Dear Dr. Muma, 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 http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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, Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, OD, MPH, PhD, FAAO Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300799.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, Editor PONE-D-23-29248R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Muma, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300799.r006

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 .