Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 15, 2024
Decision Letter - Muhammad Iqhrammullah, Editor

PONE-D-24-06176A systematic review of post COVID-19 condition in children and adolescents: Gap in evidence from low and -middle-income countries and the impact of SARS-COV-2 variantsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Putri,

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.

Authors have not provided sufficient literature review in the discussion. I encourage to incorporate more evidence, particularly with the newly updated ones.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 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,

Muhammad Iqhrammullah, 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:

“Indonesia Endowment Fund/LPDP for publication support.”

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We would like to thank Poh Chua, medical librarian who helped us in literature search. The authors of this paper gratefully acknowledge Indonesia Endowment Fund/Lembaga Pengelola Dana Penelitian (LPDP) for PhD scholarship funding awarded to NDP.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Indonesia Endowment Fund/LPDP for publication support.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: A systematic review of post-COVID-19 symptoms in children and adolescents, focusing on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), analyzed 40 studies with 825,849 participants. Most studies involved adolescents, with limited data on young children. Only one study from an LMIC was identified, involving 58 participants. The studies varied in their definitions and durations of post-COVID-19 conditions, complicating comparisons. Prevalence ranged from 1.8% to 70%, with notable heterogeneity and reliance on self-reported symptoms. Fatigue, headache, and respiratory symptoms were the most common. The review highlighted the need for more data from LMICs and young children.

Although this study provided interesting insights, I recommend further revisions to refine the manuscript:

Recent studies have shown the possible persistence of long COVID for 2 years in the general population (DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.12.004). However, the meta-analysis data reported in this study is only limited to the adult population. It would be important to emphasize the need for a more in-depth analysis looking at the prevalence of long COVID symptoms in the pediatric age group and how these symptoms compare with the adult population.

Kindly include a supplementary section detailing the search strategy and the outcome of the meshed search terms for every journal database used.

Please include a PICO statement as well as the PRISMA checklist.

Kindly include the rationale for why a meta-analysis was not performed in this study. You can include this statement in the methods section.

Did the studies included in the systematic review undergo quality assessment, such as using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, QUIPS, etc.? If not, please include a quality check for all the studies to assess the risk of bias.

This systematic review lacks in-depth analysis. It is important to report the pooled demographics of the children and adolescents included in this review.

Were there control groups included in the study? For example, children or adolescents who are either healthy or those who succumbed to an acute infection but did not develop long COVID?

What were the limitations of the present study? What are the gaps that need to be addressed in long COVID research involving these age groups?

There are many theories contributing to the development of long COVID. I think it is important to highlight these studies, which include the possible persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2024-0036), excessive inflammatory response, and even the generation and persistence of autoantibodies (DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1428645).

It is also important to highlight the several factors that can influence the severity and risk of developing long COVID, including vaccination prior to an acute infection (DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101624), administration of antivirals during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (DOI: 10.1007/s15010-023-02154-0), and demographics like sex and certain comorbidities (DOI: 10.3390/jcm11247314), as well as the infecting SARS-CoV-2 variant (DOI: 10.3390/v14122629).

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has shown a good work of a scientific article, however, I noticed that there is still room for improvement, which can be found in the file I attached in this section. Please revise the manuscript accordingly, 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: 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-24-06176-IR.docx
Revision 1

Rebuttal letter

Dear Editors,

We thank the reviewers for their generous comments on the manuscript and have edited it to address the concerns. The correction details are presented below.

We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS One.

Sincerely,

Nina Dwi Putri

Reviewer 1.

1. Recent studies have shown the possible persistence of long COVID for 2 years in the general population (DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.12.004). However, the meta-analysis data reported in this study is only limited to the adult population. It would be important to emphasize the need for a more in-depth analysis looking at the prevalence of long COVID symptoms in the pediatric age group and how these symptoms compare with the adult population.

Response: Thanks for this important point. Specific reference to the adult data has been added in the Introduction, Lines 72-74. Emphasis of the need for more in-depth analysis in children with comparison to adult data is added in Discussion, with reference added to findings in studies that did include and report on adults in same population (refs 39 and 43). Lines 376-380.

2. Kindly include a supplementary section detailing the search strategy and the outcome of the meshed search terms for every journal database used.

Response: Thank you. This has now been added to Supplementary 1

3. Please include a PICO statement as well as the PRISMA checklist.

Response: A PICO statement has not been included as the data reviewed are observational. The Population line 120-124 and Outcomes line 127-130 are clearly defined and included. However, there is no Intervention being studied and so no Comparison can be made such as between age groups because of study heterogeneity. The characteristics of control groups (by age and sex) whenever reported are listed in Table 1 for the studies that compared persistence of symptoms to COVID-confirmed cases.

PRISMA Checklists have been added, which are:

• PRISMA Checklist for abstract (Supplementary 4)

• PRISMA Checklist for manuscript (Supplementary 5)

4. Kindly include the rationale for why a meta-analysis was not performed in this study. You can include this statement in the methods section.

Response: It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis for reasons outlined in Methods line 226-229 which reads “We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to the wide heterogeneity in study design (such as varying definitions of post COVID-19 condition, timing and method of follow-up assessments) and in study participants (including variations in reporting by age groups and the severity of acute COVID).”

5. Did the studies included in the systematic review undergo quality assessment, such as using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, QUIPS, etc.? If not, please include a quality check for all the studies to assess the risk of bias.

Response: There is a specific section in manuscript Line 187-188 under the sub-heading of “Assessment of Risk of Bias”, with detailed table included as Supplementary 2.

6. This systematic review lacks in-depth analysis. It is important to report the pooled demographics of the children and adolescents included in this review.

Response: Within the acknowledged limitations of the variation in reporting of data by the included studies, we have strived to report pooled demographics based on the data we extracted for participant details including by age, sex, definition, symptoms, diagnostic method and severity. Results paragraph: lines 245-251

7. Were there control groups included in the study? For example, children or adolescents who are either healthy or those who succumbed to an acute infection but did not develop long COVID?

Response: Thank you. We included all studies (with or without control) and the data regarding the control population when available are included in Table 1 such as age, sex and proportion with persistent symptoms when available. The statement can be found in Line 175-176.

8. What were the limitations of the present study? What are the gaps that need to be addressed in long COVID research involving these age groups?

Response: The limitations of available data are referred to repeatedly in the manuscript – the main ones being study heterogeneity not allowing meta-analysis and lack of clearly defined controls in many studies. Limitation of the included studies are presented separately in Line 363-366, Line 367-371, Line 382-387, Line 418-422, line 429-432 while limitation of this review is shown in Line 414-422, Line 433-435, Line 445-446

9. There are many theories contributing to the development of long COVID. I think it is important to highlight these studies, which include the possible persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2024-0036), excessive inflammatory response, and even the generation and persistence of autoantibodies (DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1428645).

Response: Thank you. These have been added to the manuscript. Line 382-387, Line 390-393, Line 400-413

10. It is also important to highlight the several factors that can influence the severity and risk of developing long COVID, including vaccination prior to an acute infection (DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101624), administration of antivirals during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (DOI: 10.1007/s15010-023-02154-0), and demographics like sex and certain comorbidities (DOI: 10.3390/jcm11247314), as well as the infecting SARS-CoV-2 variant (DOI: 10.3390/v14122629).

Response: Thanks for these suggestions. The following have been added -

• Vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 variant has been added to Line 428-431

• Antiviral treatment has been added to Line 394-396

• Sex has been added to Line 433-441

We did not document comorbidities of included studies’ participants therefore did not discuss the influence of comorbidities to post COVID-19 condition

Reviewer 2.

11. Overall, this manuscript has given a clear and relevant explanation regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants in children and adolescence from HICs, UMICs, and LMICs. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the experimental design is reproducible. The data is interpreted appropriately throughout the manuscript. However, I have highlighted a room for improvement, which can be found below. Please address them accordingly. Thank you!

Response: thanks for this positive review.

12. (page 10, line 38): What does it mean with “1.8 to 70%”? Please unify the usage of percentage symbol to each mentioned numerical value.

Response: The format has been changed to 1.8% to 70%. All other percentages have also been changed to this format.

13. (page 10, lines 40-42): The repetition of “when Alpha predominated” from this sentence should be removed.

Response: This has been done. The line has been changed to: “The range of prevalence of reported post COVID-19 condition was 4.1%–66.7% in the studies in which the variant of concern was not identifiable, [45, 56] 6.7%–70% in the Alpha variant predominated studies, [62, 71] 23%–61.9% in the Delta predominated studies, [45, 49] 17–34.6% in the Omicron predominated studies, [33, 54] and 3.7%–34% in the Other-variant predominated studies [61,65] Fatigue was the commonest symptom reported in all variant subgroups (9/11 [81.8%] in Alpha, 4/4 [100%] in Delta, 2/4 [50%] in Omicron, 6/6 [100%] in Other-variant predominated studies, and 7/14 [50%] in unidentifiable-variant-predominated studies).”

14. (page 11, lines 61-62): This sentence “A systematic review of post COVID-19 condition indicates . .” will be more significant if it’s also supported by another relevant study. Please check https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v1i3.48

Response: The study data are now referred to as: “A meta-analysis of 22 studies found that prolonged fatigue, joint pain, anosmia, headache and myalgia were recorded in 21.2%, 15.4%, 9.7%, 8.9% and 5.6% of adult COVID-19 survivors, respectively”.

15. (page 12, line 101): What is the meaning of “tw, kf, dq, and hw”? Please explain.

Response: now spelt out in text.

16. Please make sure that the percentage symbol is used with similar format throughout the manuscript. I noticed that the authors inconsistently use this symbol.

Response: All percentage format has been changed to “xx% to xx%

17. Authors are suggested to proofread the manuscript after addressing all comments to avoid any typo, grammatical, and lingual mistakes and errors.

Response: thank you for your feedback

18. (page 37, figure 4): Please make sure to apply the correct writing of SARS-CoV-2.

Response: it has been changed to: “Fig 4. Distribution of Predominating SARS-CoV-2 Variants between Included Studies”

19. (page 24, lines 358-360): This sentence “There are currently no published data . . .” is such a bold claim because I found a literature that reported a case of co-infection between SARS-CoV-2 and Orientia tsutsugamushi in a young teen in Nepal. Please check Bastola A, Sah R, Rajbhandari SK, et al. SARS-CoV-2 and Orientia tsutsugamushico-infection in a young teen, Nepal: Significant burden in limited-resource countries in Asia?

Response: thank you – now omitted

20. 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

Answer: we have followed the styling guideline

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

21. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Indonesia Endowment Fund/LPDP for publication support.”

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.

Response: the funder has no role, the statement has been added in the manuscript and in the cover letter

22. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We would like to thank Poh Chua, medical librarian who helped us in literature search. The authors of this paper gratefully acknowledge Indonesia Endowment Fund/Lembaga Pengelola Dana Penelitian (LPDP) for PhD scholarship funding awarded to NDP.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Indonesia Endowment Fund/LPDP for publication support.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Funding information has been removed from the acknowledgement section.

23. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

Response: minimal data set (4 Microsoft excel worksheets) have been added, namely:

• Minimal Data 1_Post COVID-19 Condition based on SARS-CoV-2 Variants (data for Figure 2).xlsx

• Minimal Data 2_Post COVID-19 Condition based on Gross National Income

• Minimal Data 3_Predominating SARS-CoV-2 Variants Between Included Studies (Data for Figure 4)

• Minimal Data 4_Risk of bias assessment of included studies (For Supplementary 2)

24. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Remove: The map has been redesigned to remove any copyright

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 271024.docx
Decision Letter - Muhammad Iqhrammullah, Editor

A systematic review of post COVID-19 condition in children and adolescents: Gap in evidence from low and -middle-income countries and the impact of SARS-COV-2 variants

PONE-D-24-06176R1

Dear Dr. Putri,

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,

Muhammad Iqhrammullah, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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 manuscript has been extensively revised and is now acceptable for publication. Congratulations to the authors.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing my concerns! Now the manuscript has improved a lot, especially in terms of its quality and readability. I would suggest it for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Iqhrammullah, Editor

PONE-D-24-06176R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Putri,

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. Muhammad Iqhrammullah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .