“Without a man’s decision, nothing works”: Building resilience to Rift Valley fever in pastoralist communities in Isiolo Kenya

Irene N. Mutambo; Bernard Bett; Salome A. Bukachi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316015

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 5, 2024
18 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Nasrin Akter, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-24-03443Without a Man's Decision, Nothing Works: Building Resilience to Rift Valley fever in Pastoralist Communities in Isiolo KenyaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. mutambo, 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 Aug 02 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, Nasrin Akter, MPH Guest 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the One Health Research, Education and Outreach Centre in Africa funded by The Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and led by International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya" 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: This study is a qualitative study that aimed to understand the gendered difference in pastoral population resilience to Rift Valley fever outbreaks in a high-risk area of Kenya that has experienced numerous outbreaks since 1998. The authors use a resilience capacities framework to evaluate their findings. In total, 16 focus group discussions were carried out and 13 key informant interviews which requires significant organization and implementation. However, in the current way the manuscript is written, it is difficult to understand the results of the study and background that generated the research questions. Most notably, the results are mixed in with background and discussion to the extent I cannot understand what the study found. The introduction is difficult to follow. A good start to reshaping this intro would be to remove all mentions of the study methods and attempt to make the sentences more direct. Each paragraph should serve the purpose of delivery a key piece of information relevant to understanding how you formed your research questions. In the results, I am unsure if I am reading results of the thematic analysis or misplaced introduction. The results text also includes significant interpretation of the findings, which such be in the discussion. An important clarification is needed on what outbreak the participants are being asked to refer to. The statement that the most recent outbreak in Isiolo was in 2007 is factually incorrect. This feels like an important research question, but with the disorganization of the sections of manuscript as is, it is unclear what the key study findings are and what the author has interpreted. There are no mentions of data saturation or how many groups contributed to the different results mentioned. I highly encourage the author to resubmit the manuscript after making these changes as it seems like this is important work that could be a valuable contribution to RVF literature. Unfortunately, there are too many mistakes in the structure of the paper to give the study findings a fair evaluation. I hope the following comments are helpful in developing the next edition. General comments Do not use in text citations in the place of the authors name you are mentioning. All figures need a title and should be labeled Figure 1, Table 1, ect. The figure should come immediately after the paragraph it is mentioned in Fever should not be capitalized in “Rift Valley fever” Title: If the first part of the title is a participant quote, add quotation marks. Abstract: Line 11: Begin the abstract with a brief introduction of RVF and/or a summary of what is known about gendered differences in pastoral resilience. Move “this article presents…” to the end of the abstract Line 18: “We established that pastoralists use different approaches to reduce the effects of RVF on their livelihoods and ensure continuity” Pastoralist use different approached than who? Or men and women use different approached? This sentence is vague, and it would be best to re-word. Has the study established this or was it already known? Line 31: Change can be to “is” and you may also want to note that RVF can be directly transmitted to humans from animals Line 33: Best to avoid refereeing to RVFV as "it". You could change “and it usually” to “impacting” Line 35: Instead of (8), write the authors name if this is an article “Name and others.” However, this is basic RVF knowledge, and you can just write the sentence and the citation at the end Line 39: Remove “However” Line 43: I disagree that the most recent outbreak was 2007. See 2018, 2020, now…? Line 44: I also disagree with this statement that the 2007 outbreak mainly affected the NE. Line 46: Remove headings from introduction. Line 47: Indent new paragraph Line 49: Remove “are mainly” if they are primary. This is repetitive Line 52: I am not an expert in women decision making, but I believe it is known that women are involved heavily in decisions around child health and nutrition. You may mention this to highlight that women make decisions beyond household chores Line 54: Adaptation to what? Line 56: start new sentence with “Hence, Line 60: Remove mentions of your study’s method from the introduction. I would start this paragraph at line 61 rather than with the definition of resilience Line 61: Add the word “framework,” “theory” or something similar after “social-ecological resilience” Line 64: New sentence “For example,” Line 66: Add “of between examples and abortive and replace “might have” with “include” since you are giving an example. Line 73: It becomes repetitive to read “examples” you can shorten this by giving a simple example in the preceding sentence by using “such as” Line 75: Again, this is the introduction, remove all mentions of your study methods. Line 78: This section needs to be in the same paragraph as when you first mention gender and womens’ roles. It interrupts the flow here. There is a typo here also Line 85: This paragraph also does not seem to fit here. Perhaps move these mentions of challenges above the part where you talk about building resilience. Line 97: Be more specific on the type of RVF studies because most RVF studies overall are not focused on KAP, they are epidemiological studies. This paragraph could be deleted entirely as it does not add to the background of your study. It is fine to state that your study is a good idea from line 101 onward but make it shorter and focus on the potential impact of having such data. Then, follow with the objective of this study in one line. Line 106: Your research questions do not belong in the introduction. End the introduction with the objective/intent of your research. Methods Line 113: You could start the methods with an overview of your study moving everything from the introduction Line 120: Confirm if you reviewed the consent form orally with those participants that were unable to read and the languages consent forms were delivered in. Line 122: If the key information here is that your study area is pastoralist. It would be good to give information about livestock ownership, what proportion of households are classified as pastoral/semi-pastoral. I believe this is available from the 2019 census Line 124: This is background information you have already provided in the intro. Delete 127: Deployed? 121: Data collection was “carried out” 131: “a vignette” You could combine this sentence with line 132 to improve flow 137: This figure is presented without a title and does not follow logically. It interrupts this description of the vignette you are trying to give. Figures should be placed immediately after the paragraph they are mentioned in. This looks like it belongs with study site. Furthermore, the scale you have presented the landcover at is not easy to interpret. It would be best to choose the most prominent landcover types. I don’t see any open water on the map, so it should not be in the legend. 140: Were males and females questioned in the same space? Were any measures in place to ensure they were revealing their cards at the same time and that bias was indeed reduced? 146: Table 1 is also misplaced. It should be placed after this paragraph where you mention it in the text. 154: “clean them up” is too informal. State the modifications that were made Line 161: I have just realized that you have many results in the methods section. Remove all mentions of results in the methods, for example table 1. Results 163: Did all study participants own all these animals? Include numbers and proportions if this is a finding. 166/167: Was this a finding from your data collection or is this cultural norm something that is known? If so, it belongs in the introduction where you talk about gendered differences. 170: It would be best to give numbers and percents here as this seems highly relevant to your findings. 171: The part where you said “this is attributed” is an interpretation of results. This belongs in the discussion 172: Describing how women typically acquire livestock is background information. This belongs in the introduction unless your study identified this as a theme. If it is the later, it would be best to put this under a heading that you are leading into the results of the thematic analysis. The same goes from like 175 onward. I am unsure if this is a result of your study or misplaced introduction/interpretation of your results. 185: This is another example of introduction in the results. It makes it very difficult to follow what this study has found. 190: Of what RVF outbreak? If you mean outbreaks in general, add an s to outbreak. It would also be impactful to describe what outbreak they are refering to. Above you mention that your interpretation is the last outbreak was in 2007, if this is the one the participant is referring to, this is quite a long recall time. Depending on the above answer, you may consider including recall bias in your limitations section of the discussion. 192: Did the participants say this or is it your interpretation? If a participant said this, you can re-word “In X/X groups, participants noted that…” 206: Here is another example where it is hard to understand if this is a result. Results are generally in the past tense. In line 209, you then say the participants reported something, so it makes the reader understand that everything prior to that was misplaced background information. 219: Define what the soup is from slaughter 225: Another example of background text. I will stop pointing this out from this line onwards as I can’t interpret the findings of the study. Discussion 310 and 325: Put the authors name instead of an in-text citation 398: Limitations should be a paragraph in the discussion rather than a separate section. I’d suggest the second to the last paragraph. 418: All references need to have their format checked. The first one is all capital letters. 297: Did the participants say this or this this a general statement on RVF vaccination? Reviewer #2: 1. In line number 99-100 indicating "there are aslo a few studies......" need reference. 2. Please mention future implication after the objective of the study. 3. Provide ethical statement at the last portion of the study 4. Add more reference in the discussion section 5. Add limitation in the discussion section 6. Please check overall English language Reviewer #3: Need to generate latest data, focus on study design again and sample size determination. Conclusion should be result oriented with focus one future implication. Discusssion part can be short based on key findings. ****** 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: Yes: NUSRAT HOSSAIN SHEBA Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript-Irene.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r001
Revision 1
25 Jul 2024 Author Response Rebuttal Letter Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript, "”Without a Man’s Decision, Nothing Works”: Building Resilience to Rift Valley fever in Pastoralist Communities in Isiolo Kenya" [PONE-D-24-03443]. We appreciate the time and valuable feedback provided by the reviewers and editorial team. We have carefully addressed each concern, and we believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript. Enclosed please find the following: • Response to Reviewers: A point-by-point response to each comment, outlining the specific changes made in the manuscript. We are confident that our revised manuscript now meets the high standards of PLOS One. We are grateful for your consideration and look forward to your decision. Sincerely, Nabwire Irene Mutambo General comments Comment: Do not use in text citations in the place of the authors name you are mentioning. Response: We have adopted the PLOS ONE referencing style Comment: All figures need a title and should be labeled Figure 1, Table 1, ect. The figure should come immediately after the paragraph it is mentioned in Response: All the figures/titles have been given titles and moved to the appropriate places General comments Do not use in text citations in the place of the authors name you are mentioning. All figures need a title and should be labeled Figure 1, Table 1, ect. The figure should come immediately after the paragraph it is mentioned in Comment: Fever should not be capitalized in “Rift Valley fever” Response: All the capital F has been removed from the manuscript Title: Comment: If the first part of the title is a participant quote, add quotation marks. Response: Yes, the quote was picked from the participant’s response. The quotation has been added (though the journal system doesn’t allow quotes while submitting and that is how I submitted the title without the quotes with the advice from the PLOS ONE team) Abstract: Comment: Line 11: Begin the abstract with a brief introduction of RVF and/or a summary of what is known about gendered differences in pastoral resilience. Move “this article presents…” to the end of the abstract Response: The abstract now includes an introduction to RVF and highlights key gendered differences in resilience, offering a concise overview of our findings Comment: Line 18: “We established that pastoralists use different approaches to reduce the effects of RVF on their livelihoods and ensure continuity” Pastoralist use different approached than who? Or men and women use different approached? This sentence is vague, and it would be best to re-word. Has the study established this or was it already known? Response: This sentence has been revised to specify the different approaches used by men and women pastoralists in coping with RVF, enhancing clarity. This is a study finding Comment: Line 31: Change can be to “is” and you may also want to note that RVF can be directly transmitted to humans from animals Response: The adjective “is” has been adopted as requested and the statement has been revised Comment: Line 33: Best to avoid refereeing to RVFV as "it". You could change “and it usually” to “impacting” Response: Referring has been removed from the sentence Comment: Line 35: Instead of (8), write the authors name if this is an article “Name and others.” However, this is basic RVF knowledge, and you can just write the sentence and the citation at the end Response: This is a referencing/citation style for PLOS ONE. The citation has been put at the end of the sentence Comment: Line 39: Remove “However” “However,” has been removed Comment: Line 43: I disagree that the most recent outbreak was 2007. See 2018, 2020, now…? Response: We have updated this section with details of subsequent outbreaks in 2018, 2020, and 2024, providing a more complete historical context. Comment: Line 44: I also disagree with this statement that the 2007 outbreak mainly affected the NE. Response: This statement has been reworded and the 2020 outbreak that affected Isiolo county has been captured Comment: Line 46: Remove headings from introduction. Response: The heading has been removed Line 47: Indent new paragraph Response: The new paragraph has been indented after the heading has been removed Comment: Line 49: Remove “are mainly” if they are primary. This is repetitive Response: “Mainly” has been removed” Comment: Line 52: I am not an expert in women decision making, but I believe it is known that women are involved heavily in decisions around child health and nutrition. You may mention this to highlight that women make decisions beyond household chores Response: Children’s health and nutrition has been introduced as suggested by the reviewer Comment: Line 54: Adaptation to what? Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity Comment: Line 56: start new sentence with “Hence, Response: This whole sentence has been revised Comment: Line 60: Remove mentions of your study’s method from the introduction. I would start this paragraph at line 61 rather than with the definition of resilience Response: The method has been removed and the definition of resilience. Comment: Line 61: Add the word “framework,” “theory” or something similar after “social-ecological resilience” Response: The word “theory” has been introduced after “social-ecological resilience” Comment: Line 64: New sentence “For example,” Response: A new sentence has been introduced with “For example” Comment: Line 66: Add “of between examples and abortive and replace “might have” with “include” since you are giving an example. Response: This sentence has been revised to address all the grammatical errors Comment: Line 73: It becomes repetitive to read “examples” you can shorten this by giving a simple example in the preceding sentence by using “such as” Response: The sentence has been shortened and conjunctions (for instance, such as” have been used to replace “example” Comment: Line 75: Again, this is the introduction, remove all mentions of your study methods. Response: Methods have been removed from the introduction Comment: Line 78: This section needs to be in the same paragraph as when you first mention gender and womens’ roles. It interrupts the flow here. There is a typo here also Response: This paragraph has been moved and placed after the indented paragraph. In addition, this paragraph has been revised to enhance clarity Comment: Line 85: This paragraph also does not seem to fit here. Perhaps move these mentions of challenges above the part where you talk about building resilience. Response: This paragraph has been moved to the third after the indented paragraph Comment: Line 97: Be more specific on the type of RVF studies because most RVF studies overall are not focused on KAP, they are epidemiological studies. This paragraph could be deleted entirely as it does not add to the background of your study. It is fine to state that your study is a good idea from line 101 onward but make it shorter and focus on the potential impact of having such data. Then, follow with the objective of this study in one line. Response: The paragraph has been deleted as suggested by the reviewer Comment: Line 106: Your research questions do not belong in the introduction. End the introduction with the objective/intent of your research. Response: The research questions have been deleted from the manuscript and the study objective has been put at the end of the introduction Methods Comment: Line 113: You could start the methods with an overview of your study moving everything from the introduction Response: An overview of the study has been provided Comment: Line 120: Confirm if you reviewed the consent form orally with those participants that were unable to read and the languages consent forms were delivered in. Response: Yes, the consent forms were reviewed orally in the local language with all the participants regardless of whether an individual was able/unable to read. The sentence has been revised for clarity Comment: Line 122: If the key information here is that your study area is pastoralist. It would be good to give information about livestock ownership, what proportion of households are classified as pastoral/semi-pastoral. I believe this is available from the 2019 census Response: This information has been provided Comment: Line 124: This is background information you have already provided in the intro. Delete Response: This information has been deleted Comment: 127: Deployed? Response: This section has been revised to enhance clarity Comment: Do not use in text citations in the place of the authors name you are mentioning. Response: We have adopted the PLOS ONE referencing style Comment: All figures need a title and should be labeled Figure 1, Table 1, ect. The figure should come immediately after the paragraph it is mentioned in Response: All the figures/titles have been given titles and moved to the appropriate places Comment: 121: Data collection was “carried out” Response: The section on the “study area” was reworked and information was added for a good flow of information Comment: 131: “a vignette” You could combine this sentence with line 132 to improve flow Response: Line 131 and 132 have been combined to improve the structural flow of the argument Comment: 137: This figure is presented without a title and does not follow logically. It interrupts this description of the vignette you are trying to give. Figures should be placed immediately after the paragraph they are mentioned in. This looks like it belongs with study site. Furthermore, the scale you have presented the landcover at is not easy to interpret. It would be best to choose the most prominent landcover types. I don’t see any open water on the map, so it should not be in the legend. Response: A title has been provided to the figure and the figure has been moved next to the study site. The map plus the scale have been revised Comment: 140: Were males and females questioned in the same space? Were any measures in place to ensure they were revealing their cards at the same time and that bias was indeed reduced? Response: We had separate groups for men and women and this has been well described in the current manuscript Comment: 146: Table 1 is also misplaced. It should be placed after this paragraph where you mention it in the text. Response: The table has been deleted Comment: 154: “clean them up” is too informal. State the modifications that were made Response: The use of formal language in the sentence has been adapted. Comment: Line 161: I have just realized that you have many results in the methods section. Remove all mentions of results in the methods, for example table 1. Response: All the results have been removed from the results section and Table 1 has been deleted because the information in the table is elaborated in the naration Results Comment: 163: Did all study participants own all these animals? Include numbers and proportions if this is a finding. Response: Yes, all the study participants reported ownership of various livestock. This paragraph has been revised to specify the different livestock ownership by men and women and the proportion has been provided, enhancing clarity Comment: 166/167: Was this a finding from your data collection or is this cultural norm something that is known? If so, it belongs in the introduction where you talk about gendered differences. Response: Yes, the finding was from data collection. This has been reworked for clarity Comment: 170: It would be best to give numbers and percents here as this seems highly relevant to your findings. Response: Percentages have been provided Comment: 171: The part where you said “this is attributed” is an interpretation of results. This belongs in the discussion Response: This statement has been removed and all interpretation statements have been removed from the results section Comment: 172: Describing how women typically acquire livestock is background information. This belongs in the introduction unless your study identified this as a theme. If it is the later, it would be best to put this under a heading that you are leading into the results of the thematic analysis. The same goes from like 175 onward. I am unsure if this is a result of your study or misplaced introduction/interpretation of your results. Response: This statement highlights the reasons why women own what they own but not an introduction. The sentence has been reworded to reflect the study findings Comment: 185: This is another example of introduction in the results. It makes it very difficult to follow what this study has found. Response: The information was deleted Coment: 190: Of what RVF outbreak? If you mean outbreaks in general, add an s to outbreak. It would also be impactful to describe what outbreak they are refering to. Above you mention that your interpretation is the last outbreak was in 2007, if this is the one the participant is referring to, this is quite a long recall time. Depending on the above answer, you may consider including recall bias in your limitations section of the discussion. Response: The sentence was revised and “an” was added. The introduction was revised to capture the most recent RVF outbreaks of 2018, 2020, and 2024. However, for this study, the participants referred to the 2020 RVF outbreak that affected their community. Recall bais was one of the study limitations Comment: 192: Did the participants say this or is it your interpretation? If a participant said this, you can re-word “In X/X groups, participants noted that…” Response: The sentences have been revised to indicate which study participants (FGD/KII) reported the finding Comment: 206: Here is another example where it is hard to understand if this is a result. Results are generally in the past tense. In line 209, you then say the participants reported something, so it makes the reader understand that everything prior to that was misplaced background information. Response: The sentence has been reworded to capture the participant's responses/study findings Comment: 219: Define what the soup is from slaughter Response: The definition of soup has been provided and the sentence has been revised Comment: 225: Another example of background text. I will stop pointing this out from this line onwards as I can’t interpret the findings of the study. Response: The paragraph has been revised to reflect the study findings Comment: 297 Did the participants say this or this this a general statement on RVF vaccination? Response: Yes, the study participants reported vaccination as a coping strategy. The sentence has been revised Discussion Comment: 310 and 325: Put the authors name instead of an in-text citation Response: The in-text citation is the preference of the journal Comment 398: Limitations should be a paragraph in the discussion rather than a separate section. I’d suggest the second to the last paragraph. Response: The limitations of the study have been moved to the discussion section Comment: 418: All references need to have their format checked. The first one is all capital letters. Response: All references have been checked, and formatted Reviewer #2: Comment: 1. In line number 99-100 indicating "there are aslo a few studies......" need reference. Response: Reviewer#1 suggested that line numbers 97-100 should be removed. Therefore, the information that needed a reference was removed Comment: 2. Please mention future implication after the objective of the study. Response: The future implication of the study has been provided and placed after the study objective Comment: 3. Provide ethical statement at the last portion of the study Response: The ethical statement has been moved from the method section to the last portion of the manuscript Comment:4. Add more reference in the discussion section Response: More references have been added throughout the introduction and discussion Reference numbers: 12, 14,15,16,32,34,36,37,41,42,43,45,46,47,57, and 59 Comment: 5. Add limitation in the discussion section Response: The limitations of the study were moved to the discussion section Comment: 6. Please check overall English language Respo Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r002
28 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Nasrin Akter, Editor PONE-D-24-03443R1Without a Man's Decision, Nothing Works: Building Resilience to Rift Valley fever in Pastoralist Communities in Isiolo KenyaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. mutambo, 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 revise and update your manuscript according to the feedback of the reviewers to make it more scholarly and eligible for publication (see Reviewer #1 & Reviewer #3's feedback). Please improve language throughout the manuscript to be less colloquial. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 12 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, Nasrin Akter, MPH Guest Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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: Summary This is a revision of an original submission. The author has made significant improvement on the organization and language within the manuscript. I commend their efforts and am glad to accept this with minor revisions. A few suggestions on the minor edits for each section are highlighted below. Title Some inconsistency with capital letters. Would only capitalize: Without, Building, Rift Valley, Isiolo, and Kenya Abstract Much stronger abstract, well done! Introduction Line 32: remove the word “directly” Line57: What are do’s and don’ts? Is this a theory? You could consider starting this sentence with “Based on the theory of x, ___” or take this part out completely. It looks like you are simply trying to make the point that when women have control of resources, they can cope better and negotiate…? Line 74: End sentence after “shocks” to remove run on sentence Line 80: End sentence after “occur” to remove run on sentence. Line 92: From “This study’s..” until line 98: This should be in the discussion rather than introduction. Materials and methods Line 101: end sentence after Kenya. The explanation of RVF does not need to be repeated in methods Line 127: Minor.. but the length of groups is a result, consider moving down Results Line 168: If men owned 65% of the livestock, does this mean women owned 35% of all recorded livestock? Adding numerators and denominators can help with this interpretation, but it would nonetheless be nice to clarify. If men owned 40% of cows, did women own 60% of the cows, or did 40% of the men in the study own cows? Line 203: Believe we are missing the word net here…looks like men purchase mosquitos Line 229: Change men to male Line 288: Comma after RVF Discussion and conclusion look okay. Reviewer #2: All the points have been addressed and I think it can be published after doing some language checking by an expert. Reviewer #3: No correction at all, not addressed anything at all, simply ignored. They need to be make it clear with major revision. ****** 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: Yes: Nusrat Hossain Sheba Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r003
Revision 2
4 Oct 2024 Author Response Title Comment: Some inconsistency with capital letters. Would only capitalize: Without, Building, Rift Valley, Isiolo, and Kenya Response: The suggestion to capitalize Without, Building, Rift Valley, Isiolo, and Kenya has been adapted and the rest of the wording in the title bears small letters Introduction Comment: Line 32: remove the word “directly” Response: The word directly has been removed Comment: Line57: What are do’s and don’ts? Is this a theory? You could consider starting this sentence with “Based on the theory of x, ___” or take this part out completely. It looks like you are simply trying to make the point that when women have control of resources, they can cope better and negotiate…? Response: The sentence has been revised and do’s and do not’s have been removed Comment: Line 74: End sentence after “shocks” to remove run on sentence Response: A full stop has been introduced to avoid run on sentence Comment: Line 80: End sentence after “occur” to remove run on sentence. Response: A full stop has been introduced to avoid run on sentence Comment: Line 92: From “This study’s..” until line 98: This should be in the discussion rather than introduction. Response: The statement has not been moved because, in the first round of comments, Reviewer #2 suggested I should “mention future implications after the study's objective” in the original manuscript (lines 99-100). That is why is introduced the implication here Materials and methods Comment: Line 101: end sentence after Kenya. The explanation of RVF does not need to be repeated in methods Response: The following statement after Kenya has been removed to Comment: Line 127: Minor.. but the length of groups is a result, consider moving down Response: The length of the groups has been moved to lines 132-134 Results Comment: Line 168: If men owned 65% of the livestock, does this mean women owned 35% of all recorded livestock? Adding numerators and denominators can help with this interpretation, but it would nonetheless be nice to clarify. If men owned 40% of cows, did women own 60% of the cows, or did 40% of the men in the study own cows? Response: Numerators and denominators have been provided to help with this interpretation and presentation Comment: Line 203: Believe we are missing the word net here…looks like men purchase mosquitos Response: The word net has been introduced Comment: Line 229: Change men to male Response: Men have been changed to male Comment: Line 288: Comma after RVF Response: A comma has been introduced after RVF Reviewer #2 Comment: All the points have been addressed and I think it can be published after doing some language checking by an expert. Response: A comprehensive language review was conducted throughout the manuscript to reduce the use of colloquial language and enhance the clarity and formality of the text. Reviewer #3: Comment: No correction at all, not addressed anything at all, simply ignored. They need to be make it clear with major revision. Response: All the comments have been considered and addressed point by point as indicated in the table and in the manuscript Comment: Focus on study design again, and sample size determination. (Where is the sample size?) Response: The whole section on “study design and data collection has been reworked for clarity and to strengthen the section Comment: Need to mention qualitative study Response: The concept of qualitative study has been introduced Comment: Analysis transparency need to be more clear Response: The whole section on “data management and analysis” has been revised to capture the details of the data analysis process Comment: The discussion part can be short based on key findings Response: The discussion has revised and summarized to capture key findings Comment: A conclusion should be result-oriented with a focus one future implications. (Must be focus on key result findings & then recommendation in one or two separate sentence) Response: The conclusion has been revised to reflect the study results and implications, and further research Comment: Need to generate the latest data Response: References 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 32, 34,37, 48 and 50 have been removed and more recent literature has been introduced. The current manuscript obtains from references (2014 to 2024) except 33 and 34. The reason why these two have been maintained, we could not find a suitable reference to replace them. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r004
13 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Nasrin Akter, Editor PONE-D-24-03443R2Without a Man's Decision, Nothing Works: Building Resilience to Rift Valley fever in Pastoralist Communities in Isiolo KenyaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. mutambo, 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 Dec 28 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, Nasrin Akter, MPH Guest Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This manuscript was difficult to review with the track changes in place as there are so many sections that have been moved or deleted. Nonetheless, I think I’ve been able to review it in enough detail. I see few major mistakes, but a few details throughout require looking at. Some of these are editorial and some require author input. The comment I made about in text citations with only a number in parentheses replacing the name of the study or authors name requires input from the editor. My comment from the first revision said that the authors had adopted PLOS One ref style, but I have never seen this before in any PLOS One papers. Spell out numbers less than ten. 4=four Line 138: Typo involving Line 176: Typo between Line 290: These statements still do not make sense. I believe you mean, 95% of men owned cows, 70% of men owned goats, ect? Why not write it simply like this? If the proportion is of men (not cows) then the % associated belongs next to men, not cows. Line 468: This sentence fades away with no end? Line 480: A citation cannot replace words. You can say, “A study in x reported___” but not just putting the citation. Line 552: Resonates how? Line 590: A switch to third person point of view “The researcher” Needs to be consistent throughout 1st person “We” Line 639: Another example of these in-text citations that do not make sense. Line 644: Another example of in-text citation Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r005
Revision 3
18 Nov 2024 Author Response Methods section Comment: Spell out numbers less than ten. 4=four Response: All the number less than ten have been spelt out Comment: Line 138Typo involving Response: The typo has been resolved Comment: Line 176 Typo between Response: The typo has been resolved Results Comment: Line 290 These statements still do not make sense. I believe you mean, 95% of men owned cows, 70% of men owned goats, etc.? Why not write it simply like this? If the proportion is of men (not cows) then the % associated belongs next to men, not cows. Response: The statement has been revised to improve result clarity Discussion Comment: Line 468This sentence fades away with no end? Response: The sentence has been revised to be complete Comment: Line 480 A citation cannot replace words. You can say, “A study in x reported___” but not just putting the citation. Response: The sentence has been revised. The in-text citation has been removed and placed at the end of the sentence. Comment: Line 552 Resonates how? Response: How the results resonate with our finding has been provided Comment: Line 590 A switch to third person point of view “The researcher” Needs to be consistent throughout 1st person “We” Response: A switch to third persons’ view have remove and replaced with “we” as suggested by the reviewer Comment: Line 639 Another example of these in-text citations that do not make sense. Response: The sentence has been revised. The in-text citation has been removed and placed at the end of the sentence. Comment: Line 644 Another example of in-text citation Response: The sentence has been revised. The in-text citation has been removed and placed at the end of the sentence. References Comment: Ensure all references are complete and correct Response: All the reference list has been reworked for completeness and accuracy as indicated in the line numbers Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers--.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r006
4 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Nasrin Akter, Editor Without a Man's Decision, Nothing Works: Building Resilience to Rift Valley fever in Pastoralist Communities in Isiolo Kenya PONE-D-24-03443R3 Dear Dr. Mutambo, 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, Nasrin Akter, MPH Guest 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: I have no further comments and recommend this manuscript for publications. Congratulations to the lead author for her efforts throughout the revision process. This is a valuable contribution to the literature base ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r007
Formally Accepted
17 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Nasrin Akter, Editor PONE-D-24-03443R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mutambo, 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. Nasrin Akter Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316015.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .