Dear Dr. Grant,

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.

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

Reviewer 1: 1. This article is a protocol for an in-process scoping review. The review topic is interesting – the impact of climate change on zoonotic diseases in companion animal (dog and cat) and human populations.

2. The authors describe using the protocol to satisfy two separate reviews – one for evidence in companion animal populations, and one for human populations. There is probably a good reason for doing this, but they do not explain it in the protocol. It would be helpful if this was added.

3. I feel like the stated inclusion criteria on page 6 needs to weave in climate change into the meteorological factor(s) as the primary exposure. I know it is implied, but without explicit statement, it appears as though studies that simply focus on weather could be included, and I am not sure if that is the intent. I suggest this be justified/explained or amended.

4. Exclusion criteria – from this, it appears that the review will include theses, dissertations, conference proceedings and abstracts. Is this the intent? In addition, the search strategy states that grey literature will be included, but there are no specific inclusion/exclusion criteria stated for what grey literature will be included. For example, it appears that media would be excluded (which is good). This needs to be clarified. It is mentioned under strategy, but they should be part of exclusion criteria.

5. First level screening – “unsure” is implied to move onto level 2, because it is not “no”. What happens in level 2 screening if the answer is “unsure”?

6. Second level screening – why does the second level screening not include question 3 from level one?

7. I see the list of index search terms and key words in Appendix I. I do not see Appendix II with the database syntaxes. It would be nice to see the database-specific search strategies (+/- results).

Reviewer 2: It would be helpful to have the searches included as an appendix here. It isn't possible to evaluate the search for completeness as it currently stands. However, given that the paper is well described otherwise, I don't think this is an issue for the protocol. When publishing the final review, be sure to follow PRISMA-S reporting guidelines so the search is transparent and reproducible.

Academic Editor’s Comments: The experiences with influenza viruses’ seasonality indicate significant differences in terms of the time of onset, duration, number of peaks, and amplitude of epidemics between temperate and tropical/subtropical regions. The patterns are highly diverse in tropical countries and may be out of phase with the WHO recommendations for their respective hemisphere.  Therefore, suggest including hemispheric variations between temperate and tropical/subtropical regions as one of the inclusion criteria as an evidence for health systems planning.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 10 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.

• 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 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,

Asokan Govindaraj Vaithinathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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 note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. 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:

Thank you for choosing an important and timely topic for a scoping review.

We have received the reviewers' comments and is given below for response and suggest revising the manuscript accordingly and resubmission.

Reviewer 1: 1. This article is a protocol for an in-process scoping review. The review topic is interesting – the impact of climate change on zoonotic diseases in companion animal (dog and cat) and human populations.

2. The authors describe using the protocol to satisfy two separate reviews – one for evidence in companion animal populations, and one for human populations. There is probably a good reason for doing this, but they do not explain it in the protocol. It would be helpful if this was added.

3. I feel like the stated inclusion criteria on page 6 needs to weave in climate change into the meteorological factor(s) as the primary exposure. I know it is implied, but without explicit statement, it appears as though studies that simply focus on weather could be included, and I am not sure if that is the intent. I suggest this be justified/explained or amended.

4. Exclusion criteria – from this, it appears that the review will include theses, dissertations, conference proceedings and abstracts. Is this the intent? In addition, the search strategy states that grey literature will be included, but there are no specific inclusion/exclusion criteria stated for what grey literature will be included. For example, it appears that media would be excluded (which is good). This needs to be clarified. It is mentioned under strategy, but they should be part of exclusion criteria.

5. First level screening – “unsure” is implied to move onto level 2, because it is not “no”. What happens in level 2 screening if the answer is “unsure”?

6. Second level screening – why does the second level screening not include question 3 from level one?

7. I see the list of index search terms and key words in Appendix I. I do not see Appendix II with the database syntaxes. It would be nice to see the database-specific search strategies (+/- results).

Reviewer 2: It would be helpful to have the searches included as an appendix here. It isn't possible to evaluate the search for completeness as it currently stands. However, given that the paper is well described otherwise, I don't think this is an issue for the protocol. When publishing the final review, be sure to follow PRISMA-S reporting guidelines so the search is transparent and reproducible.

Academic Editor’s Comments: The experiences with influenza viruses’ seasonality indicate significant differences in terms of the time of onset, duration, number of peaks, and amplitude of epidemics between temperate and tropical/subtropical regions. The patterns are highly diverse in tropical countries and may be out of phase with the WHO recommendations for their respective hemisphere. Therefore, suggest including hemispheric variations between temperate and tropical/subtropical regions as one of the inclusion criteria as evidence for health systems planning.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #1: 1. This article is a protocol for an in-process scoping review. The review topic is interesting – the impact of climate change on zoonotic diseases in companion animal (dog and cat) and human populations.

2. The authors describe using the protocol to satisfy two separate reviews – one for evidence in companion animal populations, and one for human populations. There is probably a good reason for doing this, but they do not explain it in the protocol. It would be helpful if this was added.

3. I feel like the stated inclusion criteria on page 6 needs to weave in climate change into the meteorological factor(s) as the primary exposure. I know it is implied, but without explicit statement, it appears as though studies that simply focus on weather could be included, and I am not sure if that is the intent. I suggest this be justified/explained or amended.

4. Exclusion criteria – from this, it appears that the review will include theses, dissertations, conference proceedings and abstracts. Is this the intent? In addition, the search strategy states that grey literature will be included, but there are no specific inclusion/exclusion criteria stated for what grey literature will be included. For example, it appears that media would be excluded (which is good). This needs to be clarified. It is mentioned under strategy, but they should be part of exclusion criteria.

5. First level screening – “unsure” is implied to move onto level 2, because it is not “no”. What happens in level 2 screening if the answer is “unsure”?

6. Second level screening – why does the second level screening not include question 3 from level one?

7. I see the list of index search terms and key words in Appendix I. I do not see Appendix II with the database syntaxes. It would be nice to see the database-specific search strategies (+/- results).

Reviewer #2: It would be helpful to have the searches included as an appendix here. It isn't possible to evaluate the search for completeness as it currently stands. However, given that the paper is well described otherwise, I don't think this is an issue for the protocol. When publishing the final review, be sure to follow PRISMA-S reporting guidelines so the search is transparent and reproducible.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Simon Otto

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

Climate-sensitive zoonotic diseases transmissible by companion animals: A scoping review protocol

PONE-D-24-20742R1

Dear Dr.Grant,

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,

Asokan Govindaraj Vaithinathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: