Dear Dr. Thakali,

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 Oct 31 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 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,

Ilker Kacer, Assoc. Prof. M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors present an interesting article regarding ocular trauma among welders in Hetauda, Nepal. The paper discusses an important issue that affects the lives of working welders. However; I suppose the following comments would improve it:

Introduction

- The use of PPE abbreviation is inappropriate, please revise and use the unabbreviated term only in the first instance.

- Please strengthen your introduction by reviewing similar articles from around the world. For example (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35101659/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15933411/ )

Methods

- In study design, could you provide sample size calculations, to put into perspective the representativeness of your sample.

- The inclusion criteria are not clear. Were all participants examined? Or only ones with ocular complaints? Please elaborate.

- “The questionnaire was adapted from a previous study conducted in Accra, Ghana, with minor modifications.” Please cite the study and explain the modifications with justification.

- How did you define ocular trauma? Clearly describe what was perceived as ocular trauma

Results

- Table 3 needs revision. I suppose (Own PPE) should be under (PPE ownership and use).

- Trained and untrained should be following each other not separated.

Discussion

- How does the Nepali statistics regarding ocular trauma among welders compare to global statistics? And how is this relationship justified?

- Male predominance in the results can be attributed to the nature of the job itself, welder females are much less than males, please elaborate how this fact can affect the interpretation of your results regarding sex-oriented findings.

- Cost of equipment was mentioned briefly. How does this impact adherence of welders to the use of PPEs?

- To the limitations, please add that long-term follow-up and cohort studies are required to allow for a deeper understanding of this issue.

- Most cited papers are on the older. Please use more recent references.

- Figures are of low quality.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your valuable and applicable research in the field of health and safety. After careful consideration, I would like to make the following detailed and scientifically sound recommendations for improving the paper:

Abstract: The abstract should follow the usual structured format of scientific papers. It should clearly include separate sections for the introduction, methods, key findings, and conclusions. This structure enhances clarity and allows readers to quickly understand the scope and results of the study.

Keywords: Please use the PubMed term mesh to add to the list of keywords to better reflect the main topic of your study and improve indexing.

Introduction

The introduction should begin with references to international statistics and data relevant to the topic, providing a global context.

Then, discuss the specific harms and economic burdens related to the health area you are investigating.

Highlight the gap in research in the specific field of Nepal to clearly justify the necessity of your study.

A well-organized paragraph explaining the overall purpose and significance of the research should be included to establish logic and coherence.

Study Methodology

Ethical considerations related to your research should be explicitly stated in the text of the paper. This includes approval from relevant ethics committees and informed consent procedures. These statements are usually placed at the end of the paper but are essential.

Provide a detailed description of the study design and sample selection process. Specify whether the samples were selected randomly or by convenience (accessibility sampling).

Clearly state the exact type of study conducted (e.g., cross-sectional, cohort, experimental).

Refer to the questionnaire used in the study. If any changes were made to the original instrument, please justify these changes and report re-evaluated reliability and validity coefficients.

Including a table summarizing the components of the questionnaire along with the number of questions in each section will help readers better understand the data collection tool.

The data analysis method should be clearly explained. Describe the software used, the specific statistical tests applied, and the rationale for choosing those tests.

Conclusions

The conclusions section requires a more comprehensive interpretation of the results. Rather than a summary, it should provide a detailed explanation of the implications of the findings for existing knowledge and practice.

Addressing these points with scientific rigor and scrutiny will significantly improve the quality and clarity of your paper and ensure that it meets the standards of scholarly publication.

Best regards,

Reviewer #3: Good study

Concerns:

1. It is good if we could know the total population of the welders in the association that you contacted, this will help us to know the response rate for this study. That population would have helped you calculate an ideal sample size for this study. This will help us to interpret the findings of this study better at least for this locality.

2. The number of years/months each had spend in this vocation was completely absent, if this data was collected kindly analysis to see its association with ocular trauma.

3.What proportion of the female gender in this study has ocular trauma? it is important to know this, it will truly let us know if gender is really a factor associated with ocular trauma.

4. As said in the limitation; this study depends on self recall of ocular trauma which is highly subjecive, hence the finding cannot be generalized.

Reviewer #4: I would like to thank the authors for their work

However this manuscript does not add to the literature addressed prevalence and risk factors of ocular trauma among welders in Nepal with no new novel findings

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Akinsola Aina

Reviewer #4: 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.

Dear Dr. Thakali,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 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,

Ilker Kacer, Assoc. Prof. M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

While thanking you for the corrections made in this article regarding the questionnaire, due to the changes in the questions, the validity of the questionnaire has not been explained. What is meant by the changes is unclear.

Due to the changes in the references, the changes are not clear.

Reviewer #3: Welldone for the good research work.

Please, kindly mention the number of all the registered welders that were initially invited for the visual screening out of which 111 welders consented to present themselves for the study. This will give us the response rate and further help us to interpret the findings of this study better as regards the whole welders in Nepal.

Kindly define Frequent Safe training and Sometimes safe training at work mentioned in Table 4.

Was fundoscopy done for any of this patient? No posterior segment ocular morbidity was mentioned.

Was intraocular pressure done for any of this patient?

Maculopathy is an important ocular morbidity in welders.

Please include the number of years each participants had been involved in welding .... this may be a factor that might help when instituting intervention.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Akinsola Aina

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Prevalence of Ocular Trauma and Barriers to Use of Personal Protective Devices Among Welders in Hetauda, Nepal

PONE-D-25-37148R2

Dear Dr. Thakali,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Ilker Kacer, Assoc. Prof. M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Authors have addressed all my comments.

Findings will be a tool of advocacy and health education for use of protective eye wear.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Akinsola Sunday Aina

**********