https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5800-499X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 15, 2024 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-24-01412Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of Peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: After revising your manuscript, the reviewer's advice to perform minor revisions for improvement of the manuscripts, the reviewer's comments are attached below. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 14 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:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the project Boosting Uganda’s investment in livestock development (BUILD) (Grant number BMZ001). Additional support was received from the CGIAR Research Programs on Livestock and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health. We also acknowledge the CGIAR Fund Donors” Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: Dear Jane et al., I enjoyed reading the manuscript PONE-D-24-01412 entitled “Gender Roles in Ruminant Disease Management in Uganda: Implications for the Control of Peste des Petits Ruminants and Rift Valley Fever.” I got the opportunity to expand my understanding and knowledge of livestock disease control and prevention measures in Uganda. I have extended experience with animal health efforts toward disease prevention and control in eastern and western Africa but haven’t directly worked in the specific context of Uganda. So, I tried to be generic to some extent, acknowledging that aspect yet being very specific and thorough regarding scientific expectations from such an article. So below, you will find two sections, mainly a brief takeaway of my understanding of the study and a comments/question section ranging from minor to major. I remain available to expand further if some of my comments are not well understood. Summary The study addressed the following two research questions: What do men and women do to prevent or control livestock diseases that affect them and their livestock? What factors influence the choice of the disease control measures taken? It utilized a social-ecological model (SEM) and gender-analysis framework to examine factors influencing disease control options for men and women in three production systems for two livestock diseases in Uganda: Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) and Rift Valley fever (RVF). Some of the main results are that disease identification was majorly inclined towards gender roles, with men identifying diseases based on their perceptions and experiences during the post-mortem of dead animals and women during livestock management. Men and women make different management decisions to prevent or control livestock diseases. The choices are often influenced by the availability of resources such as money, time, labor, information, the cost of technology, and hierarchical power relationships within the household/community. Comments and questions The reviewer appreciates the strong literature review provided and the efforts of the authors to detail the sampling process. 1. The sites were selected on purpose based on epi reports in the areas. I suggest adding a section about the seroprevalence, vaccination coverage, and post-vaccination immunity levels for each disease and, if possible, per species (goats, sheep, cattle...) to make a case for the selections of those sites. Ideally, a table presenting those statistics nationally would easily justify the selection of sites on “purposes” unless I failed to understand the purposes mentioned. 2. Decision vs. Action/Operation is not just based on the household head. The literature on intrahousehold studies made several findings about who does what in the household regarding (decisions and actions) regarding husbandry, healthcare, markets/sales, and income spending. Drawing a list based on gender and household head might be a little too simplistic, given the objectives of the study. Some activities are not done by the women or men head of a household or rather by the young girl or boy in the household. It would have been more insightful to have them select activities and decisions they take and do in their household to ensure that the right person is in the room (FGD). 3. Provide a section of the SEM and show how the model has helped answer the research questions. The methods sections did not specifically explain how the SEM was built and used. Instead, all the results seem mainly based on FGD and KIIs, whose concrete findings are also barely mentioned. Hence, one can wonder if using FGD, KII, and participatory appraisals wouldn’t be enough to do such an analysis. Or what is the added value of the SEM? 4. One of the major animal health constraints in disease control is mobility data. In pastoral production systems, animals are rarely kept in fences, so mobility creates contacts at grazing, water points, and markets. The reviewer could not find real pieces of evidence in the articles on how these critical elements of disease control and prevention were handled. 5. At the end of the participatory sections, were there any restitutions, lessons learned, or best practices for disease prevention and control to the participant? What have they learned differently from their initial knowledge? One of the results of the analysis was that women could have been misinformed or lacked access to the right information. So, the reviewer would expect a restitution or validation meeting during which authors or health workers have updated their knowledge to impact them. 6. One aspect of disease prevention the reviewer expected was on herder’s willingness to vaccinate. The reviewer appreciates the various elements in Fig 2, especially those on perceptions of vaccines (trust, availability, side effects) and WTV for vaccination. While the availability of vaccines and other drugs at the different shops is limited due to technical and infrastructural issues, it would have been an added value to inquire if money or the cost of vaccines represents a constraint for vaccination either during or outside of national campaigns. Usually, vaccination is subsidized during campaigns to incentivize more farmers to afford the vaccination cost and boost immunity. Adding these elements could reinforce some of your conclusions. 7. The reviewer suggests adding a section for the conclusion as the authors did for the introduction. It is also important to make a clear differentiation between discussion and recommendation. Mixing the two has made that section overly long. Discuss only the study results first and add a couple of paragraphs in which you might provide your recommendations. 8. Lines 98: Reference with author name is provided in the text, unlike others. Kindly harmonize the references across the document. It may also apply to lines 643 and 634, though I am unsure. It is good to review this one more time throughout the document. 9. Another point that stood out is the gender ratio for the KIIs. How sound is it for a gender-specific study that is trying to understand gender differences in disease control and prevention to interview 32 persons with only 6 women? This would have been statistically wrong. To some extent, by increasing the sample size, one would also expect to increase the chances for various experiences and knowledge shared of the subject. 10. In Fig 2 and other parts (Table 2), where numbers are provided, it would be good to explain how those numbers are generated. You have multiple FGDs; each could be used to generate these tables or Figs. How did you end up with one table and figure? Kindly expand the methods sections with an explanation of these questions. 11. Your results are not presented per site or district but per animal production system… the reviewer is convinced that there isn’t a homogeneity of results across all sites. Hence, discussing the specificities of some of these sites could shed light on where or locations that need more attention and investments. Good luck. Reviewer. Reviewer #2: 1. the title of the paper is catch, and concise with the content of the paper 2. Abstract is relatively well written, it is with acceptable length and contain all mandatory information 3. The introduction subsection is well written, it gives an overview of the key issues contained in the paper 4. The theoretical orientation and analysis for the paper is well presented and they are relevant to the paper 5 The research questions are in line with the objectives of the paper and they add clarity in the causal effect relationship of the key study variables 6. the methodology subsection is well written, the research design, sampling procedures and data analysis plans are relevant and adequate. However, despite the fact that the study was qualitative it is important also to acknowledge that quantitative data were also collected as it has been presented in Table 1 page 11 7. The is a narrow use of the term gender to only refer to men and women, unless otherwise operationally defined, table 2 may require revisiting to include other gender categories e.g. youth male and female 8. The presentation of the findings as it appear on page 13 -27 require revisiting by improving the citation of the qualitative data, the subsection should clearly show whether the findings are from FGD or KI, location and authority of the one giving such information in terms of the KIIs 9. The discussion of the findings requires some improvements, it should reduce the repetition of findings rather, synthesis it to generate conclusions in view of the key findings, the subsection also have minimal use of literature. After generating inferences from the finding the author should also show whether his/her finding compare with others and give justification why ? 10. the conclusions and recommendations are not glaring in the discussion subsection, it should be overhauled by either showing clear conclusion and recommendations within the same subsections or the new subsections on conclusions and recommendations be added ********** 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-24-01412R1Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The manuscript needs major revision in order to be accepted for publications in PLOS ONE. Please consider revise your manuscript considering all points raised by the reviewers. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 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:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: (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 #3: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 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: 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: Dear Jane et al., Let me start by thanking you and the rest of your team for the improved manuscript quality. Overall, you found my comments and questions insightful. I appreciate your positive feedback. I have recommended accepting the revised version of the manuscript. However, it would be best for you and your team to proofread the document for additional typos here and there. Besides, I suggest adding a line or two to account for the study's limitations and list all assumptions made. I still have some reservations that a household head who is usually more on the management and decision-making side would know enough about other tasks completed that are often overlooked by other members who are only sometimes underage (responding to your ethical comment). The changes made to the suggested tables and figures and the additional sections for the conclusion and recommendations are all well-suited. The reviewer genuinely appreciates the upcoming extension efforts to raise awareness and prompt behavioral changes through a partnership with the veterinary extension service (VSF-G) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). Well done, and good luck. Reviewer #3: I read the clear version of the revised manuscript appearing first in the pdf, line numbering refers to that version. General comments The introduction introduces the subject, the local setting concerning PPR and RVF, the research questions and the methodologies to be used in a very nice way. Unfortunately, the rest of the manuscript is not of the same quality and does not deliver what is promised in the introduction. The description of the methodology, especially data analysis, lacks important clarity and details, see the detailed comments below. Among the missing details not mentioned in the comments below is a section on the researchers’ positionality. As deductive coding is used it is important to reflect and mention the researchers’ previous knowledge and experiences to explain how the analysis process was driven by the researchers’ position. It is further not clear from either the methodology or the results how the SEM and the GAF was used, it now appears that the SEM was only use was to divide the factors influencing disease control decision in the five mentioned categories and there is no description of GAF-analysis in the methodology at all. Moreover, it is not clear how the deductive codes described in the code books (S1 and S2) was used in the analysis to give the subsections described in the results, or if these subsections are indeed what is described as themes/common themes/analytical themes. This lack in the description of the methodology and the analysis makes it impossible to judge the methodological rigour, and if the conclusions are based on the data. I have further have some major concerns about the FGDs, see my comment on S1 below. All through the results section it needs to be made clearer if the reported results are valid for all systems, a specific system, or only one specific district. The discussion lacks depth and the discussion of the findings is not on the level of abstraction and reflection that is expected from a qualitative study in this journal. The text would further highly benefit from professional language editing. Detailed comments: Supplementary material 1 (FGD guide): The FGD-guide includes very many and quite detailed questions, even if only considering section A. With section B and C the content becomes enormous. It is written in the S1-file that different FGDs should be used for section A versus sections B and C, but this is not reflected in the manuscript, was those sections used for another study? Please clarify. I also find it unusual to have so many and detailed questions in a FGD in which one normally aims at having a free and open discussion driven by the participants. With so many questions the guide looks more like a semi-structured protocol for an individual interview. The length/content of the guide further raises several questions: How long time did the FGDs take? How was participant engagement ensured during the entire process? How was the results used, as for example the results from the PE are not included in this manuscript? For question 3a the probing questions and the instruction to the facilitator don’t seem to match (common diseases/all diseases/description of the diseases/zoonotic potential vs ranking based on highest mortality). Were the follow up questions (which are very many) in questions 4-6 asked for all listed diseases? If not, for which ones and how was the selection agreed on? Supplementary material 2 (KII guide): as for the FGD-guide, this guide also contains very many (interesting and important) questions. But the time given is only 25 minutes – could really all questions be answered in such a short time? And it further seems like a waist not to use the opportunity to let the conversation cover the questions more in depth rather than rushing through to finish in 25 minutes? Line 30: in the abstract you might want to skip mentioning the name of the software used. Line 46-49: the sentence is very long, please shorten it or divide it in two. Line 62: I presume the “in” should be placed after “children”. Line 61-62: milking is an important activity that should be mentioned here. Line 78: the abbreviation (SR) not previously introduced. Line 87: please remove “as an asset”, or explain why these words are needed here. Line 89: please remove “chances of”. Line 90: either add a comma after “new” or remove the comma before “and”. Line 91: instead of “burning and burying” I would prefer “safe disposal of animals that have died from diseases” as there are several ways to do this without spreading disease. Line 93: for RVF, safe handling of abortions (which might present without the animal being “sick)” is also a very important preventive measure, please add this. Line 93: you need to mention the vaccination guidelines also for PPR. Line 95-107: this seems not to belong to the subsection PPR and RVF in Uganda but rather to the previous, please move and integrate to make sure to avid overlaps. Line 108-132: his also seems not to belong to the subsection PPR and RVF in Uganda but rather to a subsection on gender in decision making and/or decision making determinant models. Please move/integrate. Line 116: which are these five key determinants? Are they only/exactly five? Please clarify. Line 127: what is meant with “all-round” in this context? Line 128: more realistic than what? Please clarify. Line 133: this seems to be the beginning of another subsection? Please clarify. It would further be a good place to introduce the objectives of the study. Line 144-147: a blank is missing or is in surplus in a couple of places in this sentence, please check and correct. Line 150: please define pastoral/agropastoral. Line 150-151: does this refer to all study districts? If so, please move the sentence to reflect that, and if not, please clarify which districts. Line 153: do you mean disease transmission or disease prevalence here? Line 191-193: the description of the GAHW and CAHW-workforce here seems misplaced, were CAHWs included as key-informants? Please clarify. Line 205: according to the FGD-guide in S1 the PE-tools were not a complement, but an integrated part of the FGDs? Please clarify and report of the results from the PE-exercises. Line 207: you need to add some more information on facilitation, language and translation. Who in the research team facilitated the interviews (FGDs and KIIs)? In what language(s) was the FGDs and KIIs done? By whom in the research team? Was notes taken in English? If not – were the note translated? How/by whom in the research team translated the interview guides? What do you mean by “in person”? Line 219: are the “team members” co-authours? Please clarify. Line 223: please mention the research questions. Line 224-231: please clarify the difference between/define what you mean by: theme, topic, common theme, analytical theme, identified theme, level of interest, subtheme. Line 221-232: please clarify the analysis-process. Did you really code before uploading the data in Nvivo? Did you use deductive coding or were themes emerging from the data? It seems (but this is not clearly described) that deductive coding was used, with the codes used in the respective code book for RVF and PPR), this needs to be described in more details, and in my opinion the codes should be included in the manuscript (not as supplementary material). Line 228: please clarify what you mean by “asses” in this regard (number of, presumed efficiency, quality, cost-benefit etc). Line 236: please remove the space in subtheme. Line 254: see my comments on the analysis and the mentioning of different kinds of themes. It would be good to start the results section by mentioning the themes that arose (emerged) during the analysis (if any). Line 255-258: this belongs in the methods-section. In addition, it is stated here that the factors were organized according to the SEM, which is what I commented on in the general comment, did the SEM include some more analytical elements, or only to organize the factors according to these pre-defined categories? Line 256: I presume the “socio-ecological framework” is the same as the SEM? Please clarify. Table 1 and 2: please adjust the formatting. Regarding the note for Table 1: I don’t see any SDs in this table? Foot notes are normally used for this kind of information. Table 2 and Figure 2: does “mixed” refer to “mixed crop-livestock system” or a mix of pastoral/agropastoral systems? Please clarify. Line 268-69: a verb seems to be missing in the first part of the sentence. Line 282: please check the level of the subsection titles to make the reading easier and clearer. Line 294-295: please check the sentence for grammar and synthax. Line 295-296: please check the sentence for grammar and synthax. Line 297: is this statement valid for all agropastoral study areas or only for Isingoro? Please clarify. Line 302-317: this seems not to fit under prophylactic measures, please move to another subsection. Line 303: was this only done in “sudden deaths”? Or do you mean in all cases of animals dying (by themselves) without known cause of death? Line 303-304: please consider the wording “local post mortem”, I think maybe something like “carcass opening” would be a more correct description? Line 305-307: was the meat distributed and the skin used as described only if the animal had died a “sudden death”? Please clarify. Line 308: quotes are normally written in italics. Line 308-09 and 312-14: these 2 quotes seem to illustrate the same thing, please remove one. Line 315-317: which result do you want to illustrate with this quote? Please clarify. Line 317: a full stop is missing at the end of the sentence. Line 322: the purpose of this statement is not clear. Was spraying done more frequently (compared to pastoral or mixed systems?) in agropastoral systems, or was it done more as a family activity (compared to what/where?). Please clarify. Line 328: should it be ”kids and lambs” or were only goats kept. Please clarify. Line 355-356: the purpose of this statement is not clear. Please clarify. Line 365: the mentioning of “from the FGDs” are puzzling as it seemed to me that all results reported so far were from the FGDs (compare line 256). Please clarify. Line 368-369: please remove “on the farm”. Line 377, 381, 396: please check for typos. Line 385: what is a “personal farm” and what do you mean by “shifting” in this sentence? Please clarify. Line 387: how was movement limited by women? Please clarify. Line 392: at what occasion were animals moved? Please clarify. Line 399-403: this sentence seems to be related to the one on line 385? Please put them together and avoid repeating/overlapping. Line 410-413: please check the sentence for grammar and syntax. Line 443: it needs to be described in the methodology section how this order of importance established. Please clarify. Line 485: please introduce the quote with a full sentence. Line 507-509: please check the sentence for grammar and syntax. Line 655-656: I failed to see description of the gender analysis framework in methodology section, or the results coming from this method. Please clarify. Line 659-661: this seems to be results that are not reported in the results-section. Please don’t introduce new results in the discussion-section. Line 661-663: I don’t understand this sentence, please try to clarify/rewrite. Lune 663-666: idem. Plus the study does not seem to be designed to assess risk-factors so I don’t understand how the statement is based on the results? Line 667: please clarify what “more” refers to (more than what)? Line 669; a blank is missing before the bracket. Line 678 and in other places: I think “self-medication” is not the best term for what you want to describe, for me “self-medication” sounds like someone is medicating him/herself. Please look for another way to describe the phenomenon of medicating ones animals without consulting an animal health professional . Line 689-690: please check the sentence for syntax. Line 690-692: I confess to not having read the article in the reference, but disregarding what it says, the association between purchasing acaricides and domestic violence and in the next step suicide needs to be more thoroughly introduced here. Line 694-696: please check the sentence for grammar and syntax. Line 698: I presume you mean “more common”? Please check. Line 698-670: I don’t understand this sentence, please try to clarify/rewrite. Line 713-714: this seems to be a conclusion or possibly a recommendation. Please move to a more appropriate section. Line 726-728: please check the sentence for syntax. Line 730: a blank is missing between the two sentences. Line 749: please change from capital to nominal i in insights. Line 759: there seems to be a surplus full stop, please remove one. Line 766: please check for typos. Line 781-798: this seems not to be conclusions or recommendations, please move to a more appropriate section. Line 782: I presume you mean “reported occurrence”? Line 791-793: please check the sentence for syntax. Line 1067: please check the numbering of the supplementary material files. Fig 1: I presume that the “corridor region” in the legend refers to the cattle corridor? I further don’t see any reference to the cattle corridor in the text (but I might have missed that), please remove the cattle corridor from the map or mention it in the description of the study area(s). ********** 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-24-01412R2Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors, the manuscripts need a major revision for improvement especially the M & M, Results and Discussion sections. Please make the emendments suggested by the reviewers and respond carefully to each point raied by them. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-24-01412R3Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors, Many comments raised by the reviewer were answered in the response to the reviewer's comments but need to be incorporated in the text. Please revise the manuscript carefully, trying to incorporate all these answers in addition to the new comments raised by the reviwer. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 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:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 #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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 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 #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 #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 #3: Many of my questions and comments have been answered but not all. Some has been answered in the point-to-point-answers to me, but with no changes done to the text. Generally, if a question is posed in the reviewer report, it implies tat changes are needed in the text, it will seldom be sufficient to just provide an answer to the reviewer. Questions from previous review that need to be answered or incorporated in the text and not only answered in the point-to-point answers: How/by whom in the research team translated the interview guides? Who in the research team facilitated the interviews (FGDs and KIIs)? In what language(s) was the FGDs and KIIs done? How long time did the FGDs take? How was participant engagement ensured during the entire process? How was the results used, as for example the results from the PE are not included in this manuscript? For question 3a the probing questions and the instruction to the facilitator don’t seem to match (common diseases/all diseases/description of the diseases/zoonotic potential vs ranking based on highest mortality). Were the follow up questions (which are very many) in questions 4-6 asked for all listed diseases? If not, for which ones and how was the selection agreed on? According to the FGD-guide in S1 the PE-tools were not a complement, but an integrated part of the FGDs? Please clarify and report of the results from the PE-exercises. New questions/comments: Line 32: there seems to be an abundant “the” in this sentence. Line 48: the sentence is long with several sub-clauses and contains two “especially”, please rephrase. Line 59: isn’t “vaccination and breeding” part of animal husbandry? Maybe you mean “daily care” or something similar? Line 61: this sentence seems to discuss the same theme as the previous so I think the blank line should be omitted. Line 77-81: please check this sentence for grammar/synthax. Line 82: this sentence seems to discuss the same theme as the previous so I think the blank line should be omitted. Line 89: does this statement only refer to one RVF-vaccine (“the RVF vaccine” (and which in that case), or should it be ”RVF-vaccines”? Line 105-107: please check this sentence for grammar/synthax. Line 124: ”as an investment or savings” seems redundant here, please remove. Line 136 and 138: please use the abbreviations (GAF and SEM) all through once introduced. Line 136: do you mean “elders” or “the elderly”? Please clarify. Line 209: a “selected” seems to be missing. Line 260: were the facilitators part of the research team? Line 291: Is the “socio-ecological themes” the same as the SEM? Line 291: Please remove the redundant full stop. Line 290 and 202: are “identified themes” and “selected themed” the same? Lines 316-319: it seems like the GAF (or part thereof, see below) was applied to the first section and the SEM to the second section? Was this the case? If so, please clarify this in the M&M and results. Lines 322-325: are these results? If so please check the tempus used, if not, move to introduction. Lines 329-331: I don’t understand what you mean with this sentence, isn’t that what you will do using the GAF and SEM? Line 345-387: this section seems to analyse/describe the different measures and tasks performed by men and women and to some extent boys and girls. If this is meant to represent the GAF-analysis, you need to mention somewhere that you analyse according to GAF – minus the elderly. Lines 380-382: see my comment on this in the previous report Line 475: Please change to “foot and mouth disease”. Line 680: I think “vaccine” should be “vaccinate”? Line 703: There seems to be a “what” missing after “asked”. Line 705-708: Isn’t that what you described in your results? Here in the discussion you are meant to discuss these results against the literature. Line 717: suggestion: “might be limited for all categories (men, women, boys and girls) of participants”. Or did you see any gender differences in this regard? Line 782: And themselves! Lines 782-784: Maybe worth mentioning costs of transport and women’s restricted access to monetary resources here if you think it is relevant based on your results. Lines 789-795: Maybe worth mentioning here that women faced specific challenge in accessing vaccination, not only because of being smallholders, but specifically related to gender? That is at least how I interpreted you results on this? Line 832 and forward: this section is length and mostly contains policy recommendations. For clarity, I would recommend dividing it into (scientific) conclusions of the study, and policy recommendations regarding vaccination and disease control in Uganda (and similar contexts). Table 1: Please check the formatting. ********** 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 #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. |
| Revision 4 |
|
PONE-D-24-01412R4Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, 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 Feb 20 2025 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:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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: Dear authors, please carefully make the amendment suggested by the third reviewer. After that your manuscript will be considered accepted for publications in 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 #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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 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 #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 #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 #3: General comments The manuscript has improved a lot since the last revision, some minor, mainly editorial comments remain/have arisen due to changes in the text, see details with line numbers below. Apart from the minor comments I have a major concern with the discussion. It still lacks engagement with the literature, and a large part of it is policy, veterinary extension and scientific recommendations. The latter is obviously an important output from research, but as this is a scientific contribution the equilibrium between recommendations and scientific discussion needs to better balanced. As the study has already produced other outputs (including recommendations), maybe the recommendations can be reduced here? Or included in another form (as a scientific discussion). As an example of the lack of engagement with the literature large parts of the discussion discuss the results, but without referring to the literature, e.g lines 748-774, 778-798, 811-820, 823-830. Minor comments Line 5: A comma seems to be missing between the numbers for the affiliation 1 and 5. Line 59: Please replace the comma after “fodder collection” with “and”. Line 219-225: Please state in which district the “extra” 4 FGD was held, and why (6 districts*2 subcounties in each*2FGD in each soubcounty (one men and one women)=24, but it seems like 28 FGDs were held?). Line 229: The sentence is not complete, please revise. Line 232-233: It seems like the sentence starting on line 232 belongs to the previous sub-section, and that the sentence starting on line 233 belongs to a new subsection, i.e. that a blank line should be introduced between these two sentences? Please revise. Line 250: What do you mean with “various aspects of the FGD-guide” in this context? Do you mean “since the FGD-guide covered many topics” or something similar? Please revise. Line 252: Please replace the comma after “resource mapping” with “and”. Line 259: Please remove “BUILD” from the sentence. Line 339/Table 1: Please write out in the caption or as a foot note to the table what you mean by # (or write out “number of” in full). Line 342-343: Please revise the sentence, the “minus the elderly” reads somewhat bizarre. Line 347-349: Please revise the sentence. Line 371: Please remove the comma after “isolation of sick animals”. Line 381: Please remove the comma after “sick”. Line 407 and other places: Please check how you mark the start of a new subsection (new line, indent, blank line) and use the same all through the manuscript. Line 413-415: Please use italics for all citations, and use indent (or not) for all citations. Line 458: Please remove the comma after “vendors”. Line 469: This is confusing, restricting access to neighbours’ animals/movement seems to imply a belief that disease are spread by direct contact and not by ticks? Pease clarify. Line 473-474: Do you mean in both areas? Pease clarify. Line 497: Please write out numbers less than twelve in letters. Line 499/502: Is the different use of the abbreviation/disease name in full in these two quotes a mirror of how the discussants used terms, or an oversight from the authors? Please check this up. Line 524: Please remove the comma after “disease restrictions”. Line 528: Please remove the comma after “lameness and death”. Line 530: Please revise the sentence (remove the subclausation). Line 619: Please place the reference at the end of the sentence. Line 727: Maybe “investigated” or similar would be a more fitting verb than “asked”? Please consider rewording. Line 762: Please use the abbreviation (SR) once introduced. Line 818-820: Please revise the sentence, now it is written to imply that women themselves are affected by PPR. Line 858-861: This seems to be more of a summary than a conclusion. Please move to a more relevant section. ********** 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 #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. |
| Revision 5 |
|
PONE-D-24-01412R5Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors, please revise your manuscript carefully, addressing all comments raised by reviewer 3. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2025 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:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 #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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 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 #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 #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 #3: Dear authours, I have only some minor, editorial comments on this version. I do not need to see the paper again, but think that these remaining comments can be dealt with between the authors and the editor. Minor comments: Line 55-56, 817: Please put the reference at the end of the sentence. Line 135, 390: I don’t think the author guidelines includes using an indent to start a new section. Please check and unify all through the manuscript. Line 162: Please replace the colon at the end of the sentence with a full stop. Line 244-246 and line 254-256: These two sentences seem to partly convey the same message, please consider merging. Line 267-268: “by/via/using/over” seems to be missing before “telephone”. Line 281: The information about Covid-19 is repetition and does not belong in this section. Line 317: Please remove the space after the “/”. Line 318: I think “participants” would read better than “their” here, please consider changing. Line 325: I think that by “quotations” you might mean “quotes”? Line 369: I presume the number of ticks represent the number of FGDs in which at least one participant mentioned the respective measures? Can you please explain this in the foot note. Line 405-408: This is reported also in the introduction. Is it a result or background information? Please don’t duplicate. Line 794: By “socio” do you mean “social”? Line 826: Please remove “other”. Line 996: Please consider if the * after E should be removed in the reference list. ********** 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 #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. |
| Revision 6 |
|
Gender roles in ruminant disease management in Uganda: Implications for the control of peste des petits ruminants and Rift Valley fever. PONE-D-24-01412R6 Dear Dr. Jane, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Nussieba A. Osman, Dr. Med. Vet. Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-24-01412R6 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jane, 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. Nussieba A. Osman Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .