Effectiveness of health partners coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal

Sangeeta Kaushal Mishra; Samir Kumar Adhikari; Pavan Kumar Sah; Allison Eugenio Gocotano; Subash Neupane; Barsha Thapa; Gaurav Devkota

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308941

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 26, 2024
3 May 2024 Decision Letter - Shalik Ram Dhital, Editor PONE-D-24-09019Effectiveness of Health Partners Coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in NepalPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Devkota, 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. Thank you for submitting your paper to the PLOS ONE journal. I enjoyed reading your paper which is interesting and important. I have provided comments and requires minor revisions. Please go through each comments in track changes version of the manuscript and address all comments. A final clean and track changes versions of the revised copies are required to upload once you complete. Looking forward to receiving revised paper. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 17 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. With regards Shalik Ram Dhital, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions) For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission: a) A description of the data set and the third-party source b) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set c) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have d) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data 4.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. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Minor editorial comments the author needs to correct. 1 Methods section - Please replace conduction to conducting 2. Avoid starting a sentence with figure in the sentence "80.6% of the meetings covered all the agenda items while only ..........." Reviewer #2: Dear Authors I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Effectiveness of Health Partners Coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal" submitted to PLOS One. Below is a summary of my assessment: Originality and Significance: The manuscript presents new insights into the effectiveness of health partner coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal. The research question is important and addresses a significant gap in knowledge regarding pandemic response strategies. Methodology and Results: The methodology is sound and appropriate for addressing the research question. Results are logically presented and support the research findings. Conclusion and References: The conclusion is based on the research findings and appropriately drawn. References provided are relevant and sufficient. Language and Format: There is room for improvement in the English language and adherence to PLOS One manuscript preparation guidelines. I recommend revising the manuscript to enhance clarity and ensure compliance with formatting requirements. Strengths and Limitations: It is suggested to include a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study to provide a comprehensive understanding of its implications. Overall, the manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the field, but revisions are necessary to improve language quality and adherence to formatting guidelines. With these improvements, I believe the manuscript will be suitable for publication in PLOS One. Thank you. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Tanimola Makanjuola AKANDE Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Hari Prasad Kaphle, Associate Professor (Public Health), Pokhara University, Nepal ******** [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-24-09019_reviewer1.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-09019_ A editor Word.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308941.r001
Revision 1
31 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, We were pleased to have an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Effectiveness of Health Partners Coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal”. In revised manuscript, we have carefully considered reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As instructed, we have attempted to succinctly explain changes made in reaction to all comments. We have replied to each comment in point-by-point fashion as well. We have also revised the manuscript text in track changes as the major ask was to make the language readable and understandable. The responses to the concerns raised by reviewers are provided below. We would like to kindly note that the reviewers’ comments were very helpful overall, and we are appreciative of such constructive feedback on our original submission. After addressing the issues raised, we feel the quality of the paper is much improved. Response to the comments from the reviewers: Dear Reviewers, All the authors would like to thank you for your time to review the manuscript. We are highly obliged to the comments that have been provided in appreciation of the research in the subject matter of health partner coordination. Kindly find the responses to the comments provided for your perusal. Reviewer #1: Minor editorial comments the author needs to correct. 1. Methods section - Please replace conduction to conducting Response: Respected Reviewer, thank you for noticing this. Use of the word “conduction” has been replaced within the manuscript. 2. Avoid starting a sentence with figure in the sentence "80.6% of the meetings covered all the agenda items while only ..........." Response: Respected Reviewer, thank you for noting this. Sentences starting with figures have been managed as suggested. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Effectiveness of Health Partners Coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal" submitted to PLOS One. Below is a summary of my assessment: Originality and Significance: The manuscript presents new insights into the effectiveness of health partner coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal. The research question is important and addresses a significant gap in knowledge regarding pandemic response strategies. Response: Respected Reviewer, thank you. The comments are well noted. Methodology and Results: The methodology is sound and appropriate for addressing the research question. Results are logically presented and support the research findings. Response: Respected Reviewer, thank you. The comments are well noted. Conclusion and References: The conclusion is based on the research findings and appropriately drawn. References provided are relevant and sufficient. Response: Respected Reviewer, thank you. The comments are well noted. Language and Format: There is room for improvement in the English language and adherence to PLOS One manuscript preparation guidelines. I recommend revising the manuscript to enhance clarity and ensure compliance with formatting requirements. Response: Respected Reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions for revising the paper. Necessary edits have been made within the revised manuscript as suggested. Strengths and Limitations: It is suggested to include a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study to provide a comprehensive understanding of its implications. Response: Respected Reviewer, we appreciate your insightful suggestion. Necessary inclusions have been made within the revised manuscript as suggested. Overall, the manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the field, but revisions are necessary to improve language quality and adherence to formatting guidelines. With these improvements, I believe the manuscript will be suitable for publication in PLOS One. Response: Respected Reviewer, we appreciate your insightful suggestions. Necessary inclusions have been made within the revised manuscript as suggested. Dear Reviewers, kindly also find the response to the comments within the manuscript as necessary: Please remove this short title as you have the similar title. Keep only full title. Response: Respected reviewer, the comment is well noted. Since the ask for the short title was within the journal portal thus was included. It has been removed as suggested. Keywords always write in small letters. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and necessary edits made in the manuscript. Please add Original reference here. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary changes made. Please fix your all reference with Vancouver style with Squared Bracket such as [1]. Please change through out the documents. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary changes made throughout the document. Please this reference Sapkota K, Dangal G, Koirala M, Sapkota K, Poudel A, Dhital SR. Strategies for prevention and control of COVID-19 in Nepal. Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences. 2020 May 8;7(1):85-8. Response: Respected reviewer, the comment is well noted and the suggested reference included. Provincial level? Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted. However, the term ‘subnational’ was the one used in the cited plan. Could you please add one sentence here and say: Authentic communication was conducted by National Health Education, Information and Communication Center with in health and beyond, the public and private organizations including partners and local organizations. Add reference from annual report or NHEICC sources. Response: Respected reviewer, the suggestion is well noted. Strategic preparedness and response plan for COVID-19 had many pillars of which coordination and communication were included in pillar one and pillar two respectively. As this research deals with only coordination aspect of COVID-19 strategic preparedness and response plan, thus communication has not been included in this research. Moreover, during the activation of the Incident Command System of the Ministry of Health and Population, all the responses is being coordinated through the Health Emergency Operation Center, which also supported the daily media briefing and information sharing within health and beyond, in support to Health Coordination Division. Do you means Ways? Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted. The section is rewritten for better understanding, as suggested. replace with 'conducting' Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary edit made. This is better to start your results with 1-2 sentences then keep subheading. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary additions made as suggested. Avoid starting sentence s with figures Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary edits made throughout the document as suggested. Please design this figure using PACE software and replace here. You can freely login PACE and upload your figure and create it. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the figure using PACE software provided. Please prepare this table from PACE software and create new and upload. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the table using PACE software provided. Please avoid italic Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary changes been made. Create Table using Pace software. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the table using PACE software provided. Avoid italic Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary changes been made. Please start writing your discussion with the aims of this paper. Copy from the end of introduction and then further go with key findings. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary additions made as suggested. Please add one or two sentences here and say-- Thiis process is almost similar with other meetings organizing and coordinating by MOHP and partners [Reference add]. This might be due to …….. Please why similarities? Give reason.. If your findings and previous results are different , give reasons of each finding. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the necessary additions made. Please add one word in Methods chapter explaining triangulation, If you say it is a strength. Such as Information was triangulated and verified during data analysis. Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted and the and the necessary additions made as suggested. Your ethical approval letter indicates that you spent NRS 605000.. But now, you said this research received no external funding. Contradiction? Response: Respected Reviewer, the comment is well noted. The ethical approval required funding under different headings of the research, and the maximum budget from the NRs 605000 was estimated for the report writing and publication in a peer reviewed journal. This was spent for the cost of the NHRC ethical approval processing itself, and since PLoS did not require Article Processing Charge, the remaining amount is no longer used. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308941.r002
2 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Shalik Ram Dhital, Editor Effectiveness of Health Partners Coordination for COVID-19 pandemic response in Nepal PONE-D-24-09019R1 Dear Dr. Devkota 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, Shalik Ram Dhital, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308941.r003
Formally Accepted
16 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Shalik Ram Dhital, Editor PONE-D-24-09019R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Devkota, 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. Shalik Ram Dhital Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308941.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 .