Dear Dr. Minani,

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: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished.

TITLE

Lack of knowledge of stakeholders in the pork value chain: considerations for transmission and control of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi

Review Report

This paper reports the level of knowledge, health-seeking behaviour and risk factors for prevalence of infections with Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi. The researchers used a mixed-method approach to capture as much information as possible and validate it through triangulation of the information. This article makes significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in these neglected parasitic zoonoses in Burundi and Sub-Saharan Africa at large.

To improve the reporting of this piece of research, the authors should consider the following comments based on my review of the manuscript:

ABSTRACT

• Despite the use of a combination of quantitative, qualitative, and observational methods of data collection, the abstract reports only qualitative information. I advise the authors to report some key quantitative results in the abstract as well.

• The sample size information for the qualitative study should also be provided in the abstract.

• Results provided in the abstract should indicate their respective source/basis (quantitative versus qualitative study).

INTRODUCTION

The authors should provide information on the prevalence of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi. Currently, no mention at all. If they are not prevalent, the current study lacks a foundation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative strand - sampling and data collection

• The sample size formula for the quantitative study provided is not elaborated. Authors should (i) define the letters included in the formula and (ii) the values they have used to arrive at the 386 people.

• The authors said “All interview data were validated before analysis”. They should explain how the validation was done.

• Could running a multivariate analysis add value to the research findings?

Qualitative strand

• Determination of sample sizes for the various components (FGDs, informal conversation, and observations) is not described.

• Qualitative data analysis is not clearly described.

RESULTS

• Authors should double-check the conformance of the manuscript with the PLOSONE format requirement. I find specifically that the vertical and several lines in the tables might not conform to the journal’s format. Similarly, some tables are too long.

• As for porcine cysticercosis, please mention the local name for toxoplasmosis.

publication criteria  and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 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,

Khaled Abd EL-Hamid Abd EL-Razik, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you  to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include the following request in the decision letter, and ping me with follow up. “Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:  [This work was supported by the Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DGD), Belgium, through the individual sandwich PhD scholarship programme (Salvator Minani) of the Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Belgium.].  Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

5. Please include a caption for figures 1 and 2.

6. 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:

TITLE

Lack of knowledge of stakeholders in the pork value chain: considerations for transmission and control of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi

Review Report

This paper reports the level of knowledge, health-seeking behaviour and risk factors for prevalence of infections with Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi. The researchers used a mixed-method approach to capture as much information as possible and validate it through triangulation of the information. This article makes significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in these neglected parasitic zoonoses in Burundi and Sub-Saharan Africa at large.

To improve the reporting of this piece of research, the authors should consider the following comments based on my review of the manuscript:

ABSTRACT

• Despite the use of a combination of quantitative, qualitative, and observational methods of data collection, the abstract reports only qualitative information. I advise the authors to report some key quantitative results in the abstract as well.

• The sample size information for the qualitative study should also be provided in the abstract.

• Results provided in the abstract should indicate their respective source/basis (quantitative versus qualitative study).

INTRODUCTION

The authors should provide information on the prevalence of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi. Currently, no mention at all. If they are not prevalent, the current study lacks a foundation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative strand - sampling and data collection

• The sample size formula for the quantitative study provided is not elaborated. Authors should (i) define the letters included in the formula and (ii) the values they have used to arrive at the 386 people.

• The authors said “All interview data were validated before analysis”. They should explain how the validation was done.

• Could running a multivariate analysis add value to the research findings?

Qualitative strand

• Determination of sample sizes for the various components (FGDs, informal conversation, and observations) is not described.

• Qualitative data analysis is not clearly described.

RESULTS

• Authors should double-check the conformance of the manuscript with the PLOSONE format requirement. I find specifically that the vertical and several lines in the tables might not conform to the journal’s format. Similarly, some tables are too long.

• As for porcine cysticercosis, please mention the local name for toxoplasmosis.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The paper is dealing with two highly threatening zoonotic diseases. Authors tried to figure out and stand on the basic knowledge at stakeholders about both diseases. I believe that they obtained valuable information about the education and learning attitude of them about the diseases. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

So, I agreed with publishing of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-24-40420

TITLE

Lack of knowledge of stakeholders in the pork value chain: considerations for transmission and control of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi

Review Report

This paper reports the level of knowledge, health-seeking behaviour and risk factors for prevalence of infections with Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi. The researchers used a mixed-method approach to capture as much information as possible and validate it through triangulation of the information. This article makes significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in these neglected parasitic zoonoses in Burundi and Sub-Saharan Africa at large.

To improve the reporting of this piece of research, the authors should consider the following comments based on my review of the manuscript:

ABSTRACT

• Despite the use of a combination of quantitative, qualitative, and observational methods of data collection, the abstract reports only qualitative information. I advise the authors to report some key quantitative results in the abstract as well.

• The sample size information for the qualitative study should also be provided in the abstract.

• Results provided in the abstract should indicate their respective source/basis (quantitative versus qualitative study).

INTRODUCTION

The authors should provide information on the prevalence of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi. Currently, no mention at all. If they are not prevalent, the current study lacks a foundation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative strand - sampling and data collection

• The sample size formula for the quantitative study provided is not elaborated. Authors should (i) define the letters included in the formula and (ii) the values they have used to arrive at the 386 people.

• The authors said “All interview data were validated before analysis”. They should explain how the validation was done.

• Could running a multivariate analysis add value to the research findings?

Qualitative strand

• Determination of sample sizes for the various components (FGDs, informal conversation, and observations) is not described.

• Qualitative data analysis is not clearly described.

RESULTS

• Authors should double-check the conformance of the manuscript with the PLOSONE format requirement. I find specifically that the vertical and several lines in the tables might not conform to the journal’s format. Similarly, some tables are too long.

• As for porcine cysticercosis, please mention the local name for toxoplasmosis.

**********

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-40420_ReviewReport.docx

Lack of knowledge of stakeholders in the pork value chain: considerations for transmission and control of Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii in Burundi

PONE-D-24-40420R1

Dear Dr. Minani,

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,

Adetayo Olorunlana, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

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

**********

Reviewer #1: Authors addressed all comments raised by reviewers. I believe the manuscript is ready for full publication. The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion. Data included in the manuscript supported the conclusions.

Reviewer #2: I have no further queries to the manuscript as all my previous queries have been properly addressed. It is now well done.

**********

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

**********