Dynamics and control of typhoid fever in Sheno town, Ethiopia: A comprehensive nonlinear model for transmission analysis and effective intervention strategies

Lema Abdela Baisa; Belela Samuel Kotola

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306544

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 20, 2023
6 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Editor PONE-D-23-42909Dynamics and Control of Typhoid Fever in Sheno Town: A Comprehensive Nonlinear Model for Transmission Analysis and Effective Intervention StrategiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kotola, 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. The manuscript should be revised carefully by incorporating the suggested improvements provided by the reviewers. Reviewer #1: I am sincerely grateful for this opportunity to review for this journal but the plagiarism is on the high side 37%, I will advise the author to reduce the similarity index before proceeding to the reviewing process. Reviewer #2: The introduction should be enriched. The references are not uniformly written The author should consider writing the mathematical equations as a mathematician. There are so many grammatical and typo errors, the author should consider correcting it The author may consider improving the writeup with the following relevant papers: ----------Modelling the Super-infection of Two Strains of Dengue Virus Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society 2023, 31:1 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42787-023-00161-6 -----------Mathematical Analysis of Two Strains of COVID-19 Using SEIR Model J. Math. Fund. Sci. Vol. 54, No.2, 2022, 211-232. -----------Impact of Corruption in a Society with Exposed Honest Individuals: A Mathematical Model Asia Pac. J. Math. 2023 10:18 -----------Analysis of COVID-19 disease with Careless Infective using SEITRS model Asia Pac. J. Math. 2023 10:10 Some of my comments are included in the attached document. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 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: 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, Oluwole Daniel Makinde, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. Additional Editor Comments: The authors must thoroughly review the manuscript and make sure to include the suggested improvements by the reviewers. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Prof, I am sincerely grateful for this opportunity to review for this journal but the plagiarism is on the high side 37%, I will advise the author to reduce the similarity index before proceeding to the reviewing process. Thank you. John Akanni, Ph.D Reviewer #2: The introduction should be em=nriched. The author may consider including the following: 1. Modelling the Super-infection of Two Strains of Dengue Virusl Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society 2023, 31:1 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42787-023-00161-6 2. Mathematical Analysis of Two Strains of COVID-19 Using SEIR Model J.Math.Fund.Sci. Vol. 54, No.2, 2022, 211-232 3. Impact of Corruption in a Society with Exposed Honest Individuals: A Mathematical Model Asia Pac. J. Math. 2023 10:18 4. Analysis of COVID-19 disease with Careless Infective using SEITRS model Asia Pac. J. Math. 2023 10:10 The references are not uniformly written The author should consider writing the mathematical equations as a mathematician. There are so many grammatical and typo errors, the author should consider correcting it Some of my comments are inclused in the attached document ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: makinde.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r001
Revision 1
1 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Prof. Oluwole Daniel Makinde I am writing to extend my sincere gratitude for your continued guidance throughout the review process of our manuscript titled "Dynamics and Control of Typhoid Fever in Sheno Town: A Comprehensive Nonlinear Model for Transmission Analysis and Effective Intervention Strategies," bearing the identification number PONE-D-23-42909. I am pleased to inform you that we have meticulously revised the manuscript in response to the invaluable feedback provided by the reviewers. Enclosed, you will find the updated version of our manuscript along with a detailed document addressing each of the reviewers' comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewers in critically evaluating our work. Their insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We are deeply committed to upholding the rigorous standards of academic scholarship, and we believe that the revisions made will further strengthen the contribution of our research to the scientific community. Once again, we extend our gratitude to you and the reviewers for your invaluable contributions to this process. We eagerly anticipate your feedback on the revised manuscript and remain at your disposal for any further guidance or clarification you may require. Thank you for your unwavering support and consideration. Warm regards, Belela Samuel (PhD) Reviewer #1: I am sincerely grateful for this opportunity to review for this journal but the plagiarism is on the high side 37%, I will advise the author to reduce the similarity index before proceeding to the reviewing process. Response to Reviewer #1: We extend our sincere gratitude for your conscientious review of our manuscript. Your dedication to upholding academic standards and ensuring the integrity of scholarly work is deeply appreciated. We are pleased to inform you that we have taken immediate action to address the issue of plagiarism, diligently working to reduce the similarity index in accordance with your feedback. Your meticulous assessment has undoubtedly contributed to the refinement of our work, and we are thankful for your valuable insights. Your commitment to scholarly rigor is commendable, and we are honored to have benefited from your expertise in this process. Once again, we express our gratitude for your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. Should you have any further comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to share them with us. Your continued engagement is invaluable to us as we strive to uphold the highest standards of academic excellence. Warm regards, Belela Samuel(PhD) Reviewer #2: The introduction should be enriched. The references are not uniformly written The author should consider writing the mathematical equations as a mathematician. There are so many grammatical and typo errors, the author should consider correcting it The author may consider improving the writeup with the following relevant papers: ----------Modelling the Super-infection of Two Strains of Dengue Virus Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society 2023, 31:1 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42787-023-00161-6 -----------Mathematical Analysis of Two Strains of COVID-19 Using SEIR Model J. Math. Fund. Sci. Vol. 54, No.2, 2022, 211-232. -----------Impact of Corruption in a Society with Exposed Honest Individuals: A Mathematical Model Asia Pac. J. Math. 2023 10:18 -----------Analysis of COVID-19 disease with Careless Infective using SEITRS model Asia Pac. J. Math. 2023 10:10 Response to Reviewer #2: We extend our gratitude for your meticulous evaluation of our manuscript and for providing valuable suggestions for improvement. We are pleased to inform you that we have already taken proactive measures to address the issues raised: Enrichment of Introduction: The introduction has been revised and enriched to provide a more comprehensive overview of the topic, ensuring that it effectively contextualizes our study. Uniformity in References: All references have been uniformly formatted according to the prescribed style guidelines of the journal. Mathematical Equations: The mathematical equations have been revised to meet the standards expected of mathematicians, ensuring clarity and precision in their presentation. Grammatical and Typo Errors: We have conducted a thorough proofreading and editing process to rectify any grammatical and typographical errors present in the manuscript, ensuring that the text is error-free. Incorporation of Relevant Papers: The suggested relevant papers have been reviewed, and relevant insights and findings have been incorporated into our manuscript to enrich the discussion and strengthen our analysis. We sincerely appreciate your attention to detail and your commitment to maintaining the scholarly integrity of our work. Your feedback has been invaluable in guiding us towards enhancing the quality and impact of our research. Finally, your continued engagement is highly valued, and we are grateful for the opportunity to incorporate your expertise into our work. Warm regards, Belela Samuel (PhD) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r002
9 May 2024 Decision Letter - Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Editor PONE-D-23-42909R1Dynamics and Control of Typhoid Fever in Sheno Town: A Comprehensive Nonlinear Model for Transmission Analysis and Effective Intervention StrategiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kotola, 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 Jun 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, Oluwole Daniel Makinde, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors should revise the manuscript nd incorporate the reviewer's improvement suggestions: Page 13 check the characteristics equation again, Page 14 check the Ro again. The Sensitivity analysis is it local or global ? I do not think Figure 3 is correct, please check. The write up needs total repacking, the concept is okay, method is right and the results looks meaningful but poor write up . The article is not properly written, it is just cope and paste of his/her thesis, please work on the grammars and tense. For example; In this thesis ..... [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: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No 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 write up needs total repacking, the concept is okay, method is right and the results looks meaningful but poor write up . The article is not properly written, it is just cope and paste of his/her thesis, please work on the grammars and tense. For example; In this thesis ..... Reviewer #2: (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: Yes: John Olajide Akanni Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r003
Revision 2
21 May 2024 Author Response Dr. Oluwole Daniel Makinde Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Makinde, We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript, "Dynamics and Control of Typhoid Fever in Sheno Town: A Comprehensive Nonlinear Model for Transmission Analysis and Effective Intervention Strategies" (PONE-D-23-42909R1). We sincerely appreciate the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions provided by you and the reviewers, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. Editor's Comments: 1. Page 13, check the characteristic equation again. Response: We have re-examined the characteristic equation on page 13 and made corrections to ensure its accuracy. 2. Page 14, check the R₀ again. Response: The basic reproduction number, R₀, has been thoroughly reviewed and corrected as needed. 3. The Sensitivity analysis: is it local or global? Response: We clarified that the sensitivity analysis conducted is local. Additional explanations and relevant references have been added to enhance the clarity of this section. 4. I do not think Figure 3 is correct, please check. Response: Figure 3 has been re-evaluated and corrected. The updated figure is now consistent with the revised analysis and results. 5. The write-up needs total repacking. The concept is okay, the method is right, and the results look meaningful but the write-up is poor. Response: We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve clarity, coherence, and readability. The write-up has been thoroughly restructured. 6. The article is not properly written, it appears to be a copy and paste of the thesis. Please work on the grammar and tense. Response: Significant effort has been made to rewrite the manuscript to ensure it is appropriately formatted for a journal article, distinct from a thesis. We have meticulously edited the text for grammar, tense, and overall presentation. 7. For example; "In this thesis..." we have now edited the manuscript. We have also included better updated references. Response: All thesis-specific references and language have been removed. The manuscript now reflects the appropriate academic tone and structure for a journal article. Updated and more relevant references have been included to strengthen the discussion and support our findings. We hope that the revised manuscript meets the publication standards of PLOS ONE. We are grateful for the constructive feedback and believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality of our work. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your positive response. Kind regards, Belela Samuel Kotola(PhD) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r004
9 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Editor PONE-D-23-42909R2Dynamics and Control of Typhoid Fever in Sheno Town: A Comprehensive Nonlinear Model for Transmission Analysis and Effective Intervention StrategiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kotola, 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 #3: 1.)Authors need to rephrase some wording nonmeaningful like: elucidating etc. Always write paper in simple wording so that readers can benefit from it. Thoroughly check. 2.)The references list is insufficient and included some more related research work like: For instance for importance of dynamical system include: Quantitative Functional Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis in Mice with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Photoacoustic Imaging. Radiology, 300(1), 89-97. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204134, 3.) Update literature on Typhoid Fever like: Fractional order mathematical modeling of typhoid fever disease." Results in Physics 32 (2022): 105044. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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, Oluwole Daniel Makinde, 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 #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 #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #3: 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 #3: Authors need to rephrase some wording nonmeaningful like: elucidating etc. Always write paper in simple wording so that readers can benefit from it. Thoroughly check. 2.The references list is insufficient and included some more related research work like: For instance for importance of dynamical system include: Quantitative Functional Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis in Mice with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Photoacoustic Imaging. Radiology, 300(1), 89-97. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204134, Engineering In vitro Models: Bioprinting of Organoids with Artificial Intelligence. Cyborg and Bionic Systems, 4, 18. doi: 10.34133/cbsystems.0018,). Analysis of the influence of trust in opposing opinions: An inclusiveness-degree based Signed Deffuant–Weisbush model. Information Fusion, 104, 102173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.102173, The Bacterial MtrAB Two-Component System Regulates the Cell Wall Homeostasis Responding to Environmental Alkaline Stress. Microbiology Spectrum, 10(5). doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02311-22,). On The Role of Community Structure in Evolution of Opinion Formation: A New Bounded Confidence Opinion Dynamics. Information Sciences, 621, 672-690. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.101 3. Update literature on Typhoid Fever like: Fractional order mathematical modeling of typhoid fever disease." Results in Physics 32 (2022): 105044. ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r005
Revision 3
17 Jun 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer #3, We extend our heartfelt appreciation for your thorough review of our manuscript and the invaluable feedback you provided. Your insights have been pivotal in refining our work to enhance its clarity, accessibility, and scientific merit. We have carefully considered all your suggestions and have made the following updates to enhance the clarity and scientific acceptance of our work: 1. Simplification of Language: We have carefully rephrased and simplified complex wording throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Abstract, Introduction, Model Formulation, numerical section and Recommendations sections. This ensures that our findings are effectively communicated to a diverse audience. 2. Expansion of References: In response to your suggestion, we have enriched the references list by incorporating additional relevant research. Specifically, we have included the study titled "Quantitative Functional Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis in Mice with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Photoacoustic Imaging" (Radiology, 300(1), 89-97. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204134). This addition strengthens the contextual framework of our study. Thank you for your nice suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have incorporated the concepts from the suggested references into both the introduction and model formulation sections. Your input has been instrumental in enriching our study. 3. Literature Update on Typhoid Fever: We have updated the literature review on Typhoid Fever with the inclusion of the reference "Fractional order mathematical modeling of typhoid fever disease" (Results in Physics 32 (2022): 105044). This update provides a more comprehensive overview of the current research landscape in the field. Thank you for your insightful perspectives and recommendations regarding our model. We have integrated the suggested references and other relevant works into the recommendations section. The enhancements and modifications made to this work are invaluable. Finally, we would like to say that your thoughtful critiques and recommendations have significantly enriched our manuscript, making it more robust and aligned with the latest advancements in the field. We are truly grateful for your time, effort, and expertise in evaluating our work. Warm regards, Belela Samuel Kotola (PhD) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response 3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r006
20 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Editor Dynamics and Control of Typhoid Fever in Sheno Town, Ethiopia: A Comprehensive Nonlinear Model for Transmission Analysis and Effective Intervention Strategies PONE-D-23-42909R3 Dear Dr. Kotola, 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, Oluwole Daniel Makinde, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The revised manuscript is okay. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r007
Formally Accepted
28 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Editor PONE-D-23-42909R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kotola, 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 Professor Oluwole Daniel Makinde Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306544.r008

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 .