Evaluation of community pharmacists’ knowledge and attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the western region, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study

Nasser M. Alorfi; Ahmed M. Ashour; Maan H. Harbi; Fahad S. Alshehri

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317000

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 19, 2024
19 Jan 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r001
12 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Mohamed Abonazel, Editor PONE-D-24-02546Evaluation of Community Pharmacists' Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alorfi, 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 Mar 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, Mohamed R. Abonazel, 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. 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-informationhttp://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: 1. Author need to do statistical analyses (significance level of p<0.05) 2. How the author makes sure that the participants were not biased towards specific answer 3. How the author makes sure that the participants were not disengaged while answering. 4. How the author makes sure about reliability of result Reviewer #2: It is an honor for me to review a manuscript number " PONE-D-24-02546 " titled " Evaluation of Community Pharmacists' Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional Study" for the " PLOS ONE’' journal. The manuscript looks interesting and significant locally however, the following major modification is required. • The introduction is poorly described and not aligned with the study objective • Kindly add the rationale of the study under the last paragraph of the introduction • Kindly add how survey tools were developed • Kindly write Cronbach’s alpha values • Kindly add how survey respondents were selected • How respondents were identified • How survey link was disseminated among the respondents • Kindly add the study site • How study respondents were biased • Kindly add exclusion criteria for the study • Discussion needs to update and compare findings with the latest published article • Please scan your manuscript again and correct some topological errors • Please make sure your manuscript was written in line with this journal submission guideline as well as reference styles ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r002
Revision 1
25 Mar 2024 Author Response PONE-D-24-02546 Evaluation of Community Pharmacists' Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional study. Dear Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 Author response: Thanks indeed. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: Thanks indeed. We made the requested changes. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: Thanks indeed for your positive feedback. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: Thanks indeed for your positive feedback. 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: 1. Author need to do statistical analyses (significance level of p ;0.05) 2. How the author makes sure that the participants were not biased towards specific answer 3. How the author makes sure that the participants were not disengaged while answering. 4. How the author makes sure about reliability of result Author response: The study implemented rigorous measures to mitigate potential predispositions. Randomized assignment was employed to distribute participants evenly across conditions, minimizing selection bias. The design of the questionnaire was carefully crafted to avoid leading or suggestive language, and a pre-testing phase was conducted to identify and rectify any potential biases from community pharmacists in western region of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, blinding techniques were incorporated to ensure both participants and experimenters remained unaware of specific conditions, reducing the risk of bias stemming from expectations. The study also prioritized diverse participant demographics to enhance external validity because mostly of the community pharmacists are non-Saudis. Lastly, the importance of informed consent and debriefing procedures was emphasized, ensuring participants were adequately informed about the study's nature and potential biases. These comprehensive strategies collectively contribute to bolstering the study's internal validity and minimizing the likelihood of participant bias towards specific answers. Significance level of p ;0.05 were applied for all. Reviewer #2: It is an honor for me to review a manuscript number PONE-D-24-02546; Evaluation of Community Pharmacists; Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional Study. The manuscript looks interesting and significant locally however, the following major modification is required. The introduction is poorly described and not aligned with the study objective. Author response: Thanks indeed. We updated the whole manuscript including the introduction. Kindly add the rationale of the study under the last paragraph of the introduction Author response: Thanks indeed. Done. Kindly add how survey tools were developed Author response: Thanks indeed. The tool was explained under ‘’ Questionnaire design’ section. Kindly write Cronbach’s alpha values Author response: Thanks indeed. Kindly add how survey respondents were selected. Author response: Thanks indeed. We have updated the whole paragraph under ‘’ 2.2 Survey respondent selection process and data collection.’’ How survey link was disseminated among the respondents Author response: Thank you for your insightful question. The survey link was disseminated among the respondents through a google form link. Specifically, we utilized email invitations, institutional mailing lists, etc.] to reach our target audience. Kindly add the study site Author response: Thanks indeed. We added the study site. Community pharmacists (CPs) living Makkah, Madinah, Jeddah and Taif which represent in the western region of Saudi Arabia How study respondents were biased Author response: Thanks indeed. The study implemented rigorous measures to mitigate potential predispositions. Randomized assignment was employed to distribute participants evenly across conditions, minimizing selection bias. The design of the questionnaire was carefully crafted to avoid leading or suggestive language, and a pre-testing phase was conducted to identify and rectify any potential biases from community pharmacists in western region of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, blinding techniques were incorporated to ensure both participants and experimenters remained unaware of specific conditions, reducing the risk of bias stemming from expectations. The study also prioritized diverse participant demographics to enhance external validity because mostly of the community pharmacists are non-Saudis. Lastly, the importance of informed consent and debriefing procedures was emphasized, ensuring participants were adequately informed about the study's nature and potential biases. These comprehensive strategies collectively contribute to bolstering the study's internal validity and minimizing the likelihood of participant bias towards specific answers. Kindly add exclusion criteria for the study Author response: Thanks indeed. Done as of ‘’The study excluded CPs from the other regions of Saudi Arabia and those who are not in the practice’’. Discussion needs to update and compare findings with the latest published article Author response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to update and compare our findings with the latest published articles. However, the limited availability of relevant literature in for Hajj and Umrah poses a challenge. We have thoroughly searched for recent publications and, while the number is limited, we have incorporated the most pertinent ones into the discussion. We hope this addresses your concern, and we appreciate your understanding of the constraints in our field. Please scan your manuscript again and correct some topological errors. Author response: Thanks indeed. The manuscript underwent a significant English proofreading, and you can check the tracking. Please make sure your manuscript was written in line with this journal submission guideline as well as reference styles Author response: Thanks indeed. Done. 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. 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r003
27 May 2024 Decision Letter - Mohamed Abonazel, Editor PONE-D-24-02546R1Evaluation of Community Pharmacists' Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alorfi, 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 Jul 11 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, Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors have been given a final opportunity to modify their research according to the comments received from the reviewers. [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 ******** 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: No ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: 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: 1. Mention response rate of participants. 2. How the author makes sure that the participants were not biased towards specific answer 3. How the author makes sure that the participants were not disengaged while answering. 4. How the author makes sure about reliability of result Reviewer #2: All, Raised comments not yet rectified. I'm afraid that neither the introduction, design of the study nor the obtained results and employed analytical methods have sufficient merit to be published in the PLOS ONE Journal. There are lots of flaws in the manuscript. ****** 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 ******** [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.0317000.r004
Revision 2
2 Aug 2024 Author Response The first file with track changes. Kindly open the word file to check and track. Kindest regards, Dr. Nasser Alorfi Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter (2).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r005
21 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Mohamed Abonazel, Editor PONE-D-24-02546R2Evaluation of Community Pharmacists' Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alorfi, 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 05 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, Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D. Academic 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. Additional Editor Comments: One reviewer suggested adding some references; please check these references and then add only those references related to the topic of the manuscript or the statistical analysis used in the applied study. 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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: 1. Result of time spend on providing Hajj and Umrah health related conditions advice pilgrims is non significant. How the author ensure the comparison of this study with another study. 2. How the author makes sure that the participants were not biased towards specific answer 3. How the author makes sure that the participants were not disengaged while answering. 4. Author need to mention response rate Reviewer #2: All the raised comments have been rectified by the comments. However, I am still worried about sampling and sample size calculator proper citation. Kindly add a suitable reference for sampling and a sample size calculation. Rather than just link OpenEpi:Sample Size for X-Sectional,Cohort,and Clinical Trials . However, you may use this reference for sampling and a sample size calculation. Ali MD, Hatef EAJA. Types of Sampling and Sample Size Determination in Health and Social Science Research. Journal of Young Pharmacists [Internet]. 2024 Jun 6;16(2):204–15. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5530/jyp.2024.16.27 and cite them properly. Reviewer #3: 1. The "Conclusion" section needs improvement. 2. The paper contains a few grammatical errors. The authors need to review the full text carefully. 3. Recently published papers are relevant to this manuscript, so one or all of them should be cited, such as doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101353 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250149 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****** 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 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.0317000.r006
Revision 3
16 Dec 2024 Author Response See attached Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response Letter 03.12.2024.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r007
20 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Mohamed Abonazel, Editor Evaluation of Community Pharmacists' Knowledge and Attitude about Hajj and Umrah-related health conditions in the Western Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional study. PONE-D-24-02546R3 Dear Dr. Alorfi, 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, Mohamed R. Abonazel, 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 #2: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The authors have adequately addressed the comments, and I feel this manuscript is now acceptable 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r008
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohamed Abonazel, Editor PONE-D-24-02546R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alorfi, 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 Mohamed R. Abonazel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317000.r009

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 .