https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4608-7167
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 7, 2024 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-24-18820Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barnes, 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 Sep 29 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:
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, Benedikt Ley, 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 2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 3. We note that you have referenced (Barnes K, Mabuza A, Frean PJ, Magagula R, Bridget M, et al. Smart surveillance towards malaria elimination in Mpumalanga, South Africa (SS4ME): novel approaches for mapping antimalarial resistance (Protocol). 2017) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 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. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A Reviewer #4: 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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #4: 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: This is an interesting manuscript deserving publication in plos One. For the ease of the reader I have some suggestions to improve clarity: The manuscript report data from the national malaria control program, however it seems that there are only 2 authors from the provincial program included. Affiliation 10 which seems to be a combination of the national (?) malaria program and the CHAI is not indicated. The title suggest that this is a multi-country report across sub-Saharan Africa. It would be better for the authors to clearly identify in the title that this is a report from south Africa. The same concern applied to the introduction (line 94-96) where it seems authors make a statement suggesting evidence derives from more than one location in South Africa. Line 118-120 and remaining paragraph. Unclear how this framework looks like. No reference given. Better to provide some details for the reader to understand why it is limited. Also unclear here if you use the presented study to update and refine the framework. Methods. It would be helpful for the reader to clearly differentiate between methods of the surveillance system and methods of the study presented. Methods. Unclear based on what data the survey tool was developed. Was there any piloting done etc. Methods: qual analysis (line 194) unclear what conceptual framework was used. In the method section it seems that the three elements i) the monthly and quarterly analysis, ii) the survey and iii) the qual work are all presented. But then in the results it seems that i) is reported elsewhere already. Need to make clearer in methods already. Line 231 unclear if you are referring to the quarterly assessments mentioned under i) or to the surveys? Was the survey done multiple times? Suggest to structure the results better. In line 224-227 you present some emerging themes from the qual data analysis and again in line 235-237 you present additional /different themes. Unclear if they came from different analysis. Its also unclear how you defined themes and key process a priori. Perhaps it would help the reader to have a clearer understanding of your process framework in the methods section and how this fits in with your analysis framework. Discussion; a detailed discussion on how the approach of focusing on the process logic is a limitation to a more holistic understanding of how people make sense of new interventions /system would be beneficial. Reviewer #2: Overall, the manuscript is well-written, engaging, and highly valuable to the malaria community. I have a few minor issues that need addressing or clarification, but I don’t have any major concerns. Minor issues Title: Given that your study was conducted specifically in South Africa, it might be helpful to consider updating the section of title from "Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa" to "Pre-elimination Setting in South Africa" for greater accuracy, provided it doesn’t complicate the process or other clearances Result section Clarity and Conciseness: the list of notification systems (lines 252-254) could be made clearer by rephrasing to emphasize their simultaneous use and impact. The sentence structure can be simplified to improve readability. Impact of Additional Workload (Lines 271-275): While the increased burden is mentioned, provide more detail on how it affects surveillance quality, data accuracy, or patient care. This would link the workload to tangible outcomes or challenges Details on Data Clerk Challenges (Lines 402-404): The issues with barcode scanning due to internet connectivity and the challenges faced even after training are important. Providing specific examples or further detail on these challenges could enhance understanding. For instance, how frequently were connectivity issues occurring, and what specific inconsistencies were noted? Addressing Missing Details (Lines 416-423): Highlighting missing details and incomplete forms is important, but it's also essential to provide more information on the measures implemented to resolve these problems. For instance, what steps were taken to ensure that facilities received an adequate number of barcodes? Additionally, how were facilities informed about the significance of using barcodes? Detailed Impact of Multiple Reporting Systems (Lines 526-533): The discussion of multiple reporting systems and their impact could be expanded. For instance, how did the presence of parallel systems affect data integration and overall reporting efficiency? Reviewer #3: Editor in chief, I had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript entitled ‘’Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub- Saharan Africa’’ assigned manuscript number PONE-D-24-18820. The manuscript is well articulated and comes at an appropriate time as many regions that were previously malaria-endemic are now moving toward pre-elimination phase. The manuscript highlights the importance of continued and sustained molecular surveillance as part of pre-elimination phase. It also identifies barriers to successful implementation and discussed potential challenges. However, I have several minor comments as indicated below. Abstract The abstract is well written and accurately links the research questions with the anticipated outcome. However, 1. The conclusion that reads ‘’ However, cross-cutting barriers inherent in the healthcare system can determine its success in a resource-limited setting’’. The message here is not clear. The author should consider using a different word like ‘’influence or affect’’, unless a different clarification of what the authors wish to convey to the reader is given. Authors 2. Please use consistent formatting while writing authors with initials. For example, use John I. Smith instead of switching between ‘’John I Smith’’. The authors need to maintain consistency. Specifically, Frank M. Kagoro vs Richard J Maude. Please add a full stop after the initial. Introduction The introduction is well presented, indicating the existing gaps as well as the rationale for conducting the study. Materials and Methods The materials and methods section is well presented. However, there are a few areas that need improvement as indicated below: 3. The authors indicate that ‘’falciparum-specific histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2)-based mRDT’’ was used. HRP2 mRDTs are only relevant to P. falciparum mono-infection, not mixed infections that need Pf/PAN mRDTs. The authors need to clarify why HRP2 mRDTs were preferred instead of combo mRDTs that would detect mixed infection or mono-infection of species other than P. falciparum. Species other than P. falciparum could also be circulating in the area and may be missed by the HRP2-only mRDTs. If the preference for HRP2 was due to the predominance of P. falciparum, this should be stated somewhere to justify this choice. Otherwise indicate this as one of the study limitations. 4. Furthermore, how was the issue of HRP2 deletion managed? Were there instances where some cases were mRDT- negative but slide or PCR positive? How were such situations handled? What was the gold standard of confirmatory detection tool that was used to ascertain mRDT results? 5. It is further indicated in the methods section that ‘’ For molecular surveillance, DBS filter papers were to be collected from all patients with positive mRDTs’’. How were false negative cases determined, particularly in situations where only HRP2 mRDT was used, potentially missing other infections, such as P. ovale, P. malariae, P. vivax and others? There is likelihood that a significant number of positive cases were missed. 6. Please also indicate the brand name and manufacturer of the mRDT used, as this is a standard practice when writing a manuscript. 7. In the main study, how was a malaria case defined? Using only mRDT seems inadequate. Were other tests such as malaria microscopy or species diagnostic PCR performed? If not what were the reasons for not doing so, and how did you differentiate mixed infections from P. falciparum mono-infection or infections other than P. falciparum given the fact that only HRP2 mRDT was used? Results 8. Of the notified cases, 55.1% (n=2,636) were linked to their Plasmodium falciparum molecular marker resistance profiles, with 85% (n=2,240)…. Here around 45% of the cases could not be linked with the P. falciparum molecular marker profile. This could either be due to a large number of false positive cases by mRDT that did not generate any parasite DNA for genotyping or only 55% were purposively selected for PCR analysis. The author should clarify this by at least providing a CONSORT diagram indicating how the sampling was done while depicting samples for PCR analysis. 9. The authors should also indicate whether species diagnostic PCR was performed to rule out the presence of other species or mixed infection. Figure 1 is not very elaborate on this. 10. Lines 264-265 ‘’However, in responding to the survey question on which systems are used frequently for notification, 61/64 participants reported using these interchangeably: Malaria Connect (36, 59%), NMC Notification Book (15, 25%) and NMC Mobile Phone Application (3, 5%).’’ What is indicated in the parentheses needs to be specified, or this should be written as ‘’36 (59%)’’, as it can confuse the reader. In the text it is written as ‘’five (8%)’’ which could be presented as (five, 8%). Please consider revising this part to be more concise and clearer. 11. Line 426 ‘’ Yes, that are missing, maybe the facility code or anything like that, then maybe three or four times we have experience that the RDT [referring to mRDT] came alone like just the RDT without the’’. Please correct the tense! Use ‘’experienced’’ 12. Line 436 ‘’ Routinely, the NMP collates and analysis malaria data at the provincial level each month and shares the’’. Please change the word analysis to ‘’analyses’’. Also, check the font size. 13. Figure 1: Please clarify the discrepancies observed between notified, investigated and linked cases. Specifically, explain the variability between 4787 vs 3758 and 2636. What were the methodological issues related to such variation? This needs to be well defined. 14. Figure 2: The visibility is blurry. Consider redrawing or reducing the stretching. Reviewer #4: The manuscript is well-written and describes the research concisely. There are a few formatting issues. I have also suggested another way of addressing the stated bias with a comment that would speak to the qualitative research element of data saturation. Finally I am not convinced that having the participant's HCW category/role in the quotation adds value and may instead draw negative attention to the group. ********** 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: Yes: Joseph Joachim Joseph Reviewer #3: Yes: DANIEL TR MINJA, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH, TANGA CENTRE, TAGA, TANZANIA Reviewer #4: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-24-18820R1Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barnes, 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. Reviewer 1's comments do not appear to have been addressed. If this was intentional, please provide a justification. If it was an oversight, kindly revise the manuscript and include a detailed response addressing each reviewer's comments. Additionally, ensure that all previous responses are consolidated into one document. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 19 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:
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, Benedikt Ley, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 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 Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 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: My previous comments have not been addressed. Please kindly revise the manuscript based on the submitted comments to the previous version Reviewer #2: Comments on the Manuscript Title: Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa The manuscript presented by Karen I Barnes et al. is well-written, engaging, and provides valuable insights to the malaria research community. Overall, I find the manuscript to be of high quality; however, I have a few minor issues that need addressing or clarification. There are no major concerns. Minor Issues Methods Section 1. Tool Development and Validation: Please provide a clearer description of how the tools (Tool S1, S2, etc.) were developed and validated for this specific study context. Including the criteria or methods used for validation would enhance understanding. 2. Tool References (Lines 164 and 171): When referencing tools (S1, S2, etc.), I recommend adding a brief summary after each reference (e.g., “staff survey tool”) to improve readability and context for the reader. 3. Timeframes (Line 170): Instead of “3-6 June 2020,” consider rephrasing to “between 3rd and 6th June 2020” for clarity and consistency in date formatting throughout the manuscript. 4. Quantitative Analysis (Lines 185 & 186): While R programming is specified for data analysis, it would be beneficial to briefly mention the statistical tests or models applied to detect spatiotemporal trends and assess consistency in the data. Results Section 1. Case Notifications (Lines 211–215): The section concisely provides essential statistics; however, the reference to “Further quantitative results are reported elsewhere” may leave readers curious about missing details. It would be helpful to clarify the aspects not included in this manuscript. 2. Summary of Key Findings: Please consider briefly summarizing key findings from the "elsewhere" report to provide readers with a fuller understanding of what this study covers. 3. Participant Feedback on Training (Lines 388-400): I recommend summarizing participant feedback on training more clearly. Highlighting common themes or significant outliers could provide additional depth to this section. Reviewer #4: (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 Reviewer #2: Yes: Joseph Joachim Joseph Reviewer #4: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-24-18820R2Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barnes, 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 Jan 25 2025 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:
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, Benedikt Ley, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments : Dear Author, It seems as if the comments of Reviewer 1 have still not been addressed. I copy them below for your consideration. Please kindly address all comments of the reviewer in a detailed point-by-point reply before resubmitting. If you do not wish to address any of the comments made, kindly justify your decision. Please address the following comments: "I am not sure what happened here, but I reviewed the original version and provided comments. they werent adressed at all in the resubmission and I have flagged this. The reply to reviewer comments for the most recent version dont take my comments into account. I copy the orginal comments here again. please note that line numbers refer to the original submission. This is an interesting manuscript deserving publication in plos One. For the ease of the reader I have some suggestions to improve clarity: The manuscript report data from the national malaria control program, however it seems that there are only 2 authors from the provincial program included. Affiliation 10 which seems to be a combination of the national (?) malaria program and the CHAI is not indicated. The title suggest that this is a multi-country report across sub-Saharan Africa. It would be better for the authors to clearly identify in the title that this is a report from south Africa. The same concern applied to the introduction (line 94-96) where it seems authors make a statement suggesting evidence derives from more than one location in South Africa. Line 118-120 and remaining paragraph . Unclear how this framework looks like. No reference given. Better to provide some details for the reader to understand why it is limited. Also unclear here if you use the presented study to update and refine the framework. Methods. It would be helpful for the reader to clearly differentiate between methods of the surveillance system and methods of the study presented. Methods. Unclear based on what data the survey tool was developed. Was there any piloting done etc. Methods: qual analysis (line 194) unclear what conceptual framework was used. In the method section it seems that the three elements i) the monthly and quarterly analysis, ii) the survey and iii) the qual work are all presented. But then in the results it seems that i) is reported elsewhere already. Need to make clearer in methods already. Line 231 unclear if you are referring to the quarterly assessments mentioned under i) or to the surveys? Was the survey done multiple times? Suggest to structure the results better. In line 224-227 you present some emerging themes from the qual data analysis and again in line 235-237 you present additional /different themes. Unclear if they came from different analysis. Its also unclear how you defined themes and key process a priori. Perhaps it would help the reader to have a clearer understanding of your process framework in the methods section and how this fits in with your analysis framework. Discussion: a detailed discussion on how the approach of focusing on the process logic is a limitation to a more holistic understanding of how people make sense of new interventions /system would be beneficial." [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: (No Response) ********** 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: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ********** 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: (No Response) ********** 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: I am not sure what happened here, but I reviewed the original version and provided comments. they werent adressed at all in the resubmission and I have flagged this. The reply to reviewer comments for the most recent version dont take my comments into account. I copy the orginal comments here again. please note that line numbers refer to the original submission. This is an interesting manuscript deserving publication in plos One. For the ease of the reader I have some suggestions to improve clarity: The manuscript report data from the national malaria control program, however it seems that there are only 2 authors from the provincial program included. Affiliation 10 which seems to be a combination of the national (?) malaria program and the CHAI is not indicated. The title suggest that this is a multi-country report across sub-Saharan Africa. It would be better for the authors to clearly identify in the title that this is a report from south Africa. The same concern applied to the introduction (line 94-96) where it seems authors make a statement suggesting evidence derives from more than one location in South Africa. Line 118-120 and remaining paragraph . Unclear how this framework looks like. No reference given. Better to provide some details for the reader to understand why it is limited. Also unclear here if you use the presented study to update and refine the framework. Methods. It would be helpful for the reader to clearly differentiate between methods of the surveillance system and methods of the study presented. Methods. Unclear based on what data the survey tool was developed. Was there any piloting done etc. Methods: qual analysis (line 194) unclear what conceptual framework was used. In the method section it seems that the three elements i) the monthly and quarterly analysis, ii) the survey and iii) the qual work are all presented. But then in the results it seems that i) is reported elsewhere already. Need to make clearer in methods already. Line 231 unclear if you are referring to the quarterly assessments mentioned under i) or to the surveys? Was the survey done multiple times? Suggest to structure the results better. In line 224-227 you present some emerging themes from the qual data analysis and again in line 235-237 you present additional /different themes. Unclear if they came from different analysis. Its also unclear how you defined themes and key process a priori. Perhaps it would help the reader to have a clearer understanding of your process framework in the methods section and how this fits in with your analysis framework. Discussion; a detailed discussion on how the approach of focusing on the process logic is a limitation to a more holistic understanding of how people make sense of new interventions /system would be beneficial. ********** 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 ********** [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 3 |
|
PONE-D-24-18820R3Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barnes, 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. Kindly address all of teh provided comments of reviwer 1. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 2025 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:
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, Benedikt Ley, PhD 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: (No Response) ********** 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: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ********** 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: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper again. I am aware that this manuscript has gone through multiple iterations already, but I feel that some of my comments have still not been addressed adequately. My concerns are particularly regarding the description and use of the conceptual framework. While the authors state now in the introduction (why not methods?) that they developed a conceptual framework designed to explore and guide the roll out, adoption and utilization of technologies would inform malaria elimination goals, it is unclear how this framework looks like. Perhaps the authors could add this framework as a figure to the supplement? The authors later state that the developed framework lacked options to explore interaction of determinants of success and how they interact with the users and state that the approach needed to be revised, but it remains unclear how the framework was changed. They then talk about process-oriented logic models, but its not clear at this stage that such a model was used (again, a figure showing the model might be helpful for the reader). In the methods the authors than state that they used the conceptual framework to guide the qual data analyses. Its unclear which framework they refer to at this stage, e.g. the initially developed framework, the revised one or process-oriented logic model… Given the lack of clarity around the used framework (the authors added some key words in brackets that hint at the elements of the framework) it remains difficult for the reader to understand the analysis approach. In the discussion the authors refer again to an iterative process-oriented logic model, but this doesn’t align with the terminology used previously. I appreciate the added section around the limitations of the framework (which is here called again iterative process-oriented logic model). However, this section would benefit from some references. ********** 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 ********** [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 4 |
|
Factors Affecting Integration of an Early Warning System for Antimalarial Drug Resistance within a Routine Surveillance System in a Pre-elimination Setting in Sub-Saharan Africa. PONE-D-24-18820R4 Dear Dr. Barnes, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Benedikt Ley, PhD 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: N/A ********** 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 ********** 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 |
|
PONE-D-24-18820R4 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barnes, 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 Benedikt Ley 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 .