PONE-D-24-26790Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Western Amhara Region from January 2018 to June 2023PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tadesse,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please review the English language thoroughly. The reviewers comments are attached below, Please revise the manuscript, addressing all points raised by the reviewers. ==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 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,

Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet.

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. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the corresponding author based on reasonable request]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

[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: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Review Comments to the Author

The objective of the study is clear objective. It aims to determine the spatio-temporal distribution and estimate the morbidity and case fatality of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in the Western Amhara region of Ethiopia.

The study is well defined as the authors are carry out the period, from January 2018 to June 2023, offering a perspective over 5.5 years.

The methodology is fixed as the use of data confirmed by sandwich ELISA from the laboratory.

The statistical tests were performed to compare differences between years, months, and administrative zones.

Presentation of results by year, month, and administrative zone, with specific figures are also detailed.

Conclusion and recommendations: The abstract concludes with suggestions to reduce the occurrence and spread of the disease.

For improvement

It would be useful to include a brief comparison with other regions of Ethiopia or neighboring countries to better contextualize the results.

Include an analysis of potential factors influencing outbreaks (climate, farming practices, animal movements, etc.).

Economic implications; Add an estimate of the economic impact of these outbreaks to emphasize the importance of the study.

More detailed recommendations: Elaborate further on control and prevention strategies, including details on recommended vaccination programs.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal distribution of Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Western Amhara Region from January 2018 to June 2023” aimed to study the spatial and temporal characteristics of FMD outbreaks. The topic is interesting to epidemiologists, researchers and policymakers but there are some concerns in the methodology and writing that need to be addressed.

1. Introduction:

The authors have mentioned the necessity of having spatio-temporal studies for disease control in the country. However, there is limited justification on why the disease is so important in Ethiopia. It would be more convincing to show some data on impact of the disease for eg. Economic impact of FMD.

In the last paragraph, the author has shown that there are limited studies on the spatio-temporal distribution of FMD in Eastern Amhara region after 2018, but then they decided to conduct study in Western Amhara region. Do they mean Western Amhara region, as mentioned in the title? It is confusing.

Also, in the introduction part, there is no information on the measures applied in Ethiopia for the control of FMD. What kind of measures are applied for the control of the disease in Western Amhara? Is there any vaccination program against FMD in the country? What kind of animals are focused for vaccination?

2. Materials and Methods:

The authors have mentioned that the study was conducted in Western Amhara region which is made up of nine administrative zones. However, it is not the same in the given Figure 1. The demarcation of regions and zones of Ethiopia are confusing in the given map.

The authors have not stated what is their study population and susceptible species present in the study area.

In the data analysis, the authors have mentioned the Eastern Amhara. It is confusing. There is no any graph showing the seasonality.

3. Result:

Were all the 164 cases laboratory confirmed? Is it Eastern Amhara region or Western again?

Figure 2 caption again has Eastern Amhara. From Figure 2, it is not possible to know which region has how many outbreaks in a particular year. The spatio-temporal disease occurrence cannot be depicted from the figure. It is recommended to use separate figures with color gradient for different years.

Figure 3 description mentions that high number of FMD outbreak was reported from Goncha Sise district. However, in the figure, there is no mention of Goncha Sise district. It is better to show the p-value in the description, or in the table.

Also, it is recommended to graphically present the outbreak data according to year and month. This could provide more clarity.

Table 3 does not have caption.

4. Discussion:

Authors need to check the study area in all over the manuscript.

Authors need to discuss on why there is high incidence of FMD in Eastern Amhara region/Western Amhara region?

5. What does the range in the bracket mean? Is it Confidence Interval Range? If so, authors should mention at what level of CI?

Also discuss about the control measures applied in the country. If vaccination is used, what serotypes of vaccines are used?

6. Recommendation:

Do authors think disease surveillance could be important in control of FMD in Ethiopia?

Other comments:

As the outbreaks were confirmed only by ELISA, are the authors confident that all the samples were collected within 3-4 days of outbreak. It is because, ELISA can detect the antigen during the earlier period of the disease infection. For the later stages of sample collection, PCR is generally used. The authors can also add this in their study limitation.

Lastly, I suggest the authors carefully revise the manuscript, particularly focusing on grammar, spelling and overall clarity.

**********

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: Ratiba BAAZIZI

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sujeeta Pokharel Dhakal

**********

[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.

Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreaks in Western Amhara Region from January 2018 to June 2023

PONE-D-24-26790R1

Dear Dr. Tadesse,

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,

Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #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 #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

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 #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 #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 #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 #2: Yes: Sujeeta Pokharel Dhakal

**********