Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

Lorraine Chapot; Rebecca Hibbard; Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto; Kusnul Yuli Maulana; Havan Yusuf; Widya Febriyani; Angus Cameron; Mathilde Paul; Timothée Vergne; Céline Faverjon

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308379

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 26, 2023
19 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Biswajit Pal, Editor PONE-D-23-43241Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in IndonesiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chapot, 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 May 03 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, Biswajit Pal, M.SC., Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This study was conducted as part of the TRANSFORM (Transformational Strategies for Farm Output Risk Mitigation) funded by USAID (Cooperative Agreement No. 7200AA21CA00004)." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 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. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Kindly modify the manuscript as mentioned 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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: The article is prepared through survey based adoptive research activities, as prepared through qualitative thematic analysis concept. In the article no significant qualitative statistical analysis was observed in the article, which makes it difficult to specify as review or research article. The orientation of the cited references should be verified, if presented following the standard format of the journal. Reviewer #2: An interesting study, I hope this manuscript will be published and read by all poultry stakeholder Please see on the manuscript for spesific comment, however a revision is needed. And if any additional data or information from university/research institution expert, will be broaden the manuscript discussion ****** 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: PONE-D-23-43241_reviewer_ONP Jan 2024.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379.r001
Revision 1
16 Apr 2024 Author Response The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and recommendations to improve this paper. Below are the authors’ responses to the points they raised. Reviewer 1: Comment: The article is prepared through survey based adoptive research activities, as prepared through qualitative thematic analysis concept. In the article no significant qualitative statistical analysis was observed in the article, which makes it difficult to specify as review or research article. The orientation of the cited references should be verified, if presented following the standard format of the journal. Authors’ response: Our study aimed to address a research question that was exploratory in nature – namely to understand stakeholders’ challenges, needs and capabilities related to animal production and health management in the Indonesian poultry sector. For this reason, we used a qualitative approach and inductive analytical method to explore their subjective experiences and the meanings they assign to them. The use of qualitative approaches is well established in health sciences (Bannister-Tyrrell and Meiqari, 2020; Faltermaier, 1997), and there are recognised reporting standards for qualitative research articles. In our case, we followed the Standards for Reporting of Qualitative Research (O’Brien et al., 2014). The framework for reflexive thematic analysis we adopted (Braun and Clarke, 2006) has been applied to a variety of research questions and contexts in animal health (Bard et al., 2017; Chomyn et al., 2023; Hennessey and Barnett, 2023). Contrary to content analysis and other semi-quantitative or mixed-method approaches, it does not involve any quantitative measurement (e.g., word frequency counts), but aims at generating results which provide an in-depth, contextualised understanding of the data. By the nature of its scope and scale, qualitative research is not used to generate quantitative estimates of prevalence, correlation between factors or predict outcomes, and is not applied to obtain statistically generalizable conclusions – it therefore does not entail the use of statistical tools. In line with guidance on thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), our results were reported in terms of descriptive narratives of the themes, providing an in-depth understanding of the factors that influence decision-making for poultry production and health management from the stakeholders’ perspective. We conducted a number of procedures to ensure rigor and maintain a “reflexive stance” which are described in the discussion lines 720 - 729. A paragraph has been added lines 736 – 741 to better explain what it entails in terms of transferability of the results (Ma, 2000). References: Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Meiqari, L., 2020. Qualitative research in epidemiology: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Ann. Epidemiol. 49, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.07.008 Bard, A.M., Main, D.C.J., Haase, A.M., Whay, H.R., Roe, E.J., Reyher, K.K., 2017. The future of veterinary communication: Partnership or persuasion? A qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit of client behaviour change. PLOS ONE 12, e0171380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171380 Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Chomyn, O., Wapenaar, W., Richens, I.F., Reyneke, R.A., Shortall, O., Kaler, J., Brennan, M.L., 2023. Assessment of a joint farmer-veterinarian discussion about biosecurity using novel social interaction analyses. Prev. Vet. Med. 212, 105831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105831 Faltermaier, T., 1997. Why public health research needs qualitative approaches: Subjects and methods in change. Eur. J. Public Health 7, 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/7.4.357 Hennessey, M., Barnett, T., 2023. Method in limbo? Theoretical and empirical considerations in using thematic analysis by veterinary and One Health researchers. Prev. Vet. Med. 221, 106061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106061 Ma, R.S.B., 2000. The role of qualitative research in broadening the ‘evidence base’ for clinical practice. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 6, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00213.x O’Brien, B.C., Harris, I.B., Beckman, T.J., Reed, D.A., Cook, D.A., 2014. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations. Acad. Med. 89, 1245. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 Reviewer 2: Comment: An interesting study, I hope this manuscript will be published and read by all poultry stakeholders. Please see on the manuscript for specific comment, however a revision is needed. And if any additional data or information from university/research institution expert, will be broaden the manuscript discussion. Authors’ response: In this study, universities or research institutions were considered as stakeholders, and therefore were not involved as external experts in the discussion. Line 167: The sentence has been reformulated to clarify the meaning. Line 341: The headline of this paragraph has been reformulated to better reflect its content. Indeed, this paragraph reflects private stakeholders’ opinion that the academic sector is disconnected from the field realities, which was not corroborated by interviewees from academia. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PLOS ONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379.r002
23 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Biswajit Pal, Editor Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia PONE-D-23-43241R1 Dear Dr. Chapot, 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, Biswajit Pal, M.SC., Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Biswajit Pal, Editor PONE-D-23-43241R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chapot, 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. Biswajit Pal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379.r004

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 .