Dear Dr. Spiegel,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 30 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,

Jenilee Gobin

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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

3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information 1 and 2 which you refer to in your text on page 37.

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. 

5. 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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

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: This is an interesting piece of work. It’s clearly written and engages with a critical set of questions around Indigenous engagement in environmental health research. I appreciate the effort to bring visibility to issues surrounding decolonizing research practices in a structured way. That said, there are several areas that need revision to strengthen the manuscript and ensure the conclusions are well-supported by the data.

Areas for Revision:

1. The absence of the full list of included studies (cited as S1 and S2 Tables) is a significant omission; it was impossible to assess the included literature and assess it. Table S3 was missing as well.

2. The manuscript includes broad assertions not always supported by the data. For example:

"Despite the increasing number of environmental health studies conducted in Canada among Indigenous populations, the elevated risk... is persistent and researchers are not fully communicating community-defined priorities in their publications."

I’ve interpreted this sentence as implying a causal link between persistent exposure and researchers’ failure to reflect community priorities, while generalizing about the entire field. Such claims overstate the evidence presented in a scoping review. It is important to acknowledge that academic publications are often constrained by journal formats, word limits, or editorial policies that may limit authors’ ability to include detailed community perspectives/priorities. Some researchers may, in fact, be aligning closely with community priorities in practice even if this is not fully reflected in published outputs. Claims throughout the manuscript should be more cautiously framed and more closely tied to the data presented to improve analytical rigour and credibility, or you run the risk of making generalized claims that are not necessarily true.

3. Only two studies are noted as using Indigenous research methods, but the manuscript does not describe these approaches/ studies (this is mentioned 2-3 times). A brief explanation would help clarify what qualifies as Indigenous research methodology in this context.

4. Tables 2 and 3 contain a lot of useful data, but the main text mostly lists or repeats those numbers without interpreting what they mean or highlighting key patterns. The results section would benefit from clearer synthesis, such as drawing out trends, contrasts, or implications from the tables, rather than just presenting counts. This is one my biggest concerns, you have presented interesting findings, but you need to give the reader more of a “so what?” or “why should I care as a researcher, policy maker, community member, etc.?”

----

Editing suggestions

The writing is clear, but some sentences are quite long or dense, making them harder to follow than they need to be. You’re presenting the state of the art, be clear and concise!

Introduction

Line 76: “The growing complexity of environmental contamination, including new chemicals and mixtures and multi-level pollution drivers…”

Suggested: “…including emerging chemicals, mixtures, and multi-level drivers of pollution…”

Line 83: “This is the case of environmental health research in the Circumpolar North…”

Suggested: “This is particularly evident in environmental health research in the Circumpolar North…”

Line 104: “Unfortunately, despite the increasing interest in fostering collaborations with Indigenous Peoples…”

Suggested: “Although interest in fostering collaboration is increasing…”

Methods

Line 178: “Cited or citing references were not examined, and additional studies were not sought through other strategies.”

Suggested: “We did not examine cited or citing references, nor did we search grey literature or consult external sources.”

Line 196: “We verified if organizations were governed by Indigenous Peoples and classified those that explicitly mention their connection…”

Suggested: “We verified whether the organizations were governed by Indigenous Peoples…”

Results

Line 220: “This number was based on the names that authors assigned in their articles…” [I found this sentence a bit vague, starting on line 219.]

Suggested: “This count reflects the names used by authors in the original studies…”

Line 252: “We also explored the activities that were reported to have been carried out…”

Suggested: “We also examined reported community engagement activities…”

Line 281: “Around 60% of articles did not provide information on community use of study results…”

Suggested: “Approximately 60% of articles did not report…”

Discussion

Line 365: “Despite the challenges of articulating contrasting knowledge systems…”

Suggested: “Despite the challenges of bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems…”

Line 431: “Community engagement strategies are not exclusive to qualitative methods…”

Suggested: “Although not exclusive to qualitative methods, community engagement strategies were more commonly reported in studies that included them.”

Conclusion

Line 565: “Beyond the benefits of a horizontal dialogue in incorporating analytical frameworks…”

Suggested: “Beyond the benefits of more equitable collaboration and integrated approaches…”

Line 571: “Research on toxic exposures among historically oppressed populations needs to be in line with the voices of Indigenous scholars…”

Suggested: “Research on toxic exposures in historically marginalized populations should align with the priorities and perspectives of Indigenous scholars…”

Finally, it would help to standardize terminology, for example terms like “Indigenous Peoples” and “Indigenous populations” and/ or “Indigenous communities” seem to be used interchangeably, and a consistent choice would improve clarity.

With these revisions, the manuscript will be well-positioned to make a meaningful and lasting contributions to the literature on Indigenous health, environmental contamination, and improve research relationships with Indigenous partners.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your work in this area. A comprehensive systematic search of the literature following a scoping review process was conducted to identify and describe reported practices for engaging Indigenous communities in research focused on contaminated food systems. The manuscript is well-written but would benefit from a few revisions to strengthen the methodological approach described and the implications of the scoping review findings.

- Currently, the method section is described at a high level. The authors may consider providing further details on their search strategy, eligibility criteria, data extraction, classification, and analysis. Additionally, the authors may consider citing the process they followed for the systematic scoping review. Providing details on how articles were screened and selected for data extraction would help to highlight the systematic steps the research team took to ensure rigour and reduce bias in the scoping review process.

-Lines 169-171 read as an objective statement that could be moved to the introduction. Your methods section could then lead with a description of the search strategy.

- Inclusion/exclusion criteria – Providing further information on your inclusion criteria, including geographic context, type of source (could be more specific to indicate primary research?), would help to clarify the scope of the review to the reader and set up how your results are currently organized and presented.

- Data analysis – more information is needed here. The authors indicate using R statistical software, but don’t describe what it was used for and why.

-Information on the role of co-authors in either developing the search strategy, eligibility criteria, screening and article selection could be provided. For example, in lines 190-191, you could include the initials of the two independent reviewers.

As the authors indicate that their study as a scoping review, I suggest the authors check their paper against the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

**********

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

Community engagement in Indigenous food systems contamination studies: A systematic scoping review

PONE-D-25-27598R1

Dear Dr. Spiegel,

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,

Jenilee Gobin

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: Yes

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for engaging with my comments in a thoughtful manner; a great piece of work for our field.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your contributions to the literature on this topic! Congratulations to all the authors.

**********

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

**********