Dear Dr. Abebe,

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 Nov 18 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.

• 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,

David Zadock Munisi, 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All data are available in the manuscript]

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. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <Quality assesment.docx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Introduction

Please recast here ‘’The disease is endemic in 70 developing countries, and more than 200

million people are infected worldwide’’.

Please recast here and don’t start with ‘’Both’’ Both the intestinal (caused by S. mansoni) and

urogenital (caused by S. haematobium) forms of SCH are prevalent in Ethiopia [4].

Please recast here and break into two sentences ‘’Mass drug administration (MDA), facility-based case diagnosis and treatment, snail control in hotspots, SBCC, and access to safe water supply, basic sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are the five strategies identified to achieve this goal [4].’’

Please recast here ‘’Even though, a few studies were conducted in Ethiopia, the previous review did not include them with a possible reason of robust eligibility criteria and review period’’

Discussion

Please recast here ‘’Apart from inadequate health education and promotion, socio-cultural factors might also be barriers to changes in attitude and practices towards SCH control and prevention [15].’’

Please recast here ‘’According to this review, comprehensive knowledge about sources of infection, routes and modes of transmission, morbidity, treatment, and prevention of SCH is lacking in Ethiopia.’’

Please recast here ‘’For instance, we observed that school and community-based education sessions

were conducted only at the time of deworming which is an inadequate method to establish good knowledge and change community behavior. ‘’

Please recast here ‘’If it is properly implemented, health education has a high input-output

ratio and is a cost-effective prevention and control method’’.

Please recast here ‘’Having comprehensive knowledge contributes to having a positive attitude, which in turn contributes to behavioral changes like reducing risky activities’’

Please recast here ‘’Variations in the health education implementation at different transmission settings and study populations might contribute to differences in behavioral changes in Ethiopia.’’

Conclusions

Please recast here ‘’Findings in the reviewed studies showed inadequate KAP level of people, despite both community and school-based health education platforms were established and have been implemented for more than a decade’’.

Reviewer #2: General Reviewer Observations and Comments

A systematic review on the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) regarding schistosomiasis in Ethiopia reveals several critical insights. Generally, knowledge about schistosomiasis is variable, often influenced by factors such as education, geographic location, and access to health information.

Many communities have limited understanding of the transmission dynamics, symptoms, and prevention strategies associated with the disease. This gap in knowledge frequently translates to negative attitudes towards preventive measures, with some cultural beliefs affecting perceptions of the disease.

Moreover, behavioral practices associated with schistosomiasis prevention, including safe water usage and sanitation, are often inadequate.

Lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation facilities exacerbates the situation, contributing to the persistence of the disease in endemic regions.

Comments for review

• There is a lot of systematic editing and reviewing required from the investigator.

• When conducting research or a systematic review on knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) regarding schistosomiasis, various statistical analysis methods and data presentation tools should be used which are missing in the Data Analaysis section:

• Gaps in statistical analysis methods and the team could have used one of the following:

o Descriptive Statistics: Mean, Median, Mode: To summarize central tendencies in knowledge scores or attitudes.

o Frequency and Percentage: To detail respondents' knowledge levels, attitudes, and practices concerning schistosomiasis.

o Inferential Statistics: Chi-Square Test: To examine associations between categorical variables (e.g., knowledge levels across different demographic groups).

o T-Tests or ANOVA: To compare means of knowledge or attitude scores between different groups, such as educational levels or regions.

o Correlation Analysis: To assess relationships between knowledge and practice scores using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients.

o Regression Analysis: To identify factors influencing practices regarding schistosomiasis (e.g., logistic regression for binary outcomes).

o Factor Analysis: To identify underlying relationships between different KAP components and determine key factors affecting knowledge and practices.

Gaps in Data Presentation/Graphs/Charts and the team could have used one of the following:

o Tables: For presenting descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, and results of inferential analyses clearly.

o Bar Charts: To represent categories of knowledge and attitudes visually.

o Pie Charts: For displaying proportions of respondents' attitudes or practices.

o Box Plots: To show distributions of knowledge scores across different groups.

o Geospatial Analysis Tools: If location data is available, tools like ArcGIS can visualize schistosomiasis prevalence and KAP data across different geographic areas.

Using these statistical methods and presentation tables would have enhanced the clarity and impact of the findings related to KAP on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia.

Reviewer #3: Dear Author, thank you for submitting your interesting review. I think the data reported are of great interest and presented in an adequate fashion. Written English does not need corrections. Discussion and Introduction are appropriate.

Reviewer #4: I hereby recommend the manuscript to be published in the Plos One journal. The article on the systematic review of "Knowledge, attitude and practice on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia" has been extensively analyzed based on the studies on the disease between 2006 and 2023 in Ethiopia. Although the analysis revealed inadequate KAP on the disease but the publication of this research will further stress the need for the execution of health education and constant surveillance of schistosomiasis in Ethiopia for sustained prevention and control of the disease.

Reviewer #5: Important work

Complements the previous information.

Findings in the reviewed studies showed inadequate KAP level of people, despite both community and school-based health education platforms were established and have been implemented for more than a decade. This reminds for future strengthening the health education program and monitoring the practical implementation and impact assessment of the existing programs. Also, the implementation of two programs together (namely, STH and SCH), should be precise enough to avoid confusion and mixed information. Preparing a standard context-specific KAP assessment tool could be an immediate responsibility of the FMoH NTD prevention and control program. More studies are also recommended both at school and community level to explore the KAP level and associated factors at different endemicity settings among all

at-risk population groups.

Reviewer #6: The authors need to clarify a statement where four studies were referred but five results were presented under the section on knowledge about schistosomiasis from the papers reviewed. A comment on this was inserted. The language style was for the most part very passive. Although this is a review article, it is advised that some of the style be revised to be more active, a few of this has been addressed.

**********

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:  Prof Charles Oluwaseun Adetunji

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Aanuoluwa A. Adelani

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Ana Júlia Pinto Fonseca Sieuve Afonso

Reviewer #6: 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: Reviewer Comments.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: General Reviewer Observations and Comments.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript-KAP review final.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: NOTE TO THE EDITOR.docx

Dear Dr. Abebe,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 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,

David Zadock Munisi, Ph.D

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Generally, knowledge about schistosomiasis is variable, often influenced by factors such as education, geographic location, and access to health information.

Many communities have a limited understanding of the transmission dynamics, symptoms, and prevention strategies associated with the disease. This gap in knowledge frequently translates to negative attitudes towards preventive measures, with some cultural beliefs affecting perceptions of the disease. Moreover, behavioral practices associated with schistosomiasis prevention, including safe water usage and sanitation, are often inadequate. Lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation facilities exacerbates the situation, contributing to the persistence of the disease in endemic regions.

Comments for review

There is a lot of systematic editing and reviewing required from the investigator. When conducting research or a systematic review on knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) regarding schistosomiasis, various statistical analysis methods and data presentation tools should be used which are missing in the Data Analysis section

Gaps in statistical analysis methods and the team could have used one of the following:

o Descriptive Statistics: Mean, Median, Mode: To summarize central tendencies in knowledge scores or attitudes.

oFrequency and Percentage: To detail respondents' knowledge levels, attitudes, and practices concerning schistosomiasis.

oInferential Statistics: Chi-Square Test: To examine associations between categorical variables (e.g., knowledge levels across different demographic groups).

oT-Tests or ANOVA: To compare means of knowledge or attitude scores between different groups, such as educational levels or regions.

oCorrelation Analysis: To assess relationships between knowledge and practice scores using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients.

oRegression Analysis: To identify factors influencing practices regarding schistosomiasis (e.g., logistic regression for binary outcomes).

oFactor Analysis: To identify underlying relationships between different KAP components and determine key factors affecting knowledge and practices.

Gaps in Data Presentation/Graphs/Charts and the team could have used one of the following:

oTables: For presenting descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, and results of inferential analyses clearly.

oBar Charts: To represent categories of knowledge and attitudes visually.

oPie Charts: For displaying proportions of respondents' attitudes or practices.

oBox Plots: To show distributions of knowledge scores across different groups.

oGeospatial Analysis Tools: If location data is available, tools like ArcGIS can visualize schistosomiasis prevalence and KAP data across different geographic areas.

Using these statistical methods and presentation tables would have enhanced the clarity and impact of the findings related to KAP on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia.

Reviewer #7: Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for sending me the revised article titled " Knowledge, attitude and practice on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia. A systematic review " for re-review.

I would like to inform you that in my opinion, the author has responded to all the comments in the revised article and this article is worthy of publication in a valuable journal.

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

**********

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 #7: No

Reviewer #8: 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: Plos one Review December.docx

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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 Mar 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.

• 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,

David Zadock Munisi, Ph.D

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #8: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #8: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2:  The authors have provided point by point responses to the reviewer queries raised. This is can be moved to the next level for considerations.

Reviewer #8:  Title: Knowledge, attitude and practice on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia. A scoping review

- Authors must use a semicolon (:) to separate Ethiopia and A scoping review

Abstract

-Methodology: the authors didn’t use the framework for scoping reviews , this is one of the guidelines for writing a review as a results the are missing steps .

- there is a typo error in the last sentence of the methodology

Introduction

- The purpose of the scoping reviews is to map existing evidence, not to EVALUATE

- The authors mention that they conducted a systematic review; see the sentence below taken directly in the introduction.

“Therefore, the aim of this review was to evaluate the KAP in

relation to SCH among different population groups in Ethiopia. This systematic review will help

stakeholders assess the impact of the ongoing health education programs.”

Methodology:

The authors haven't used a framework for scoping reviews; as a result, there are missing steps.

**********

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 #8: 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

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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,

David Zadock Munisi, Ph.D

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

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #9: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #7: I Don't Know

Reviewer #9: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: No

**********

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

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: No

**********

Reviewer #7: Accept

all required questions have been answered and that all responses meet formatting specifications.

Reviewer #9: Generally, your document has merit but needs major revision. your need to address all the issues raised in your main document.

are you interested in KAP about the disease of its prevention and control practices? so, you need to clarify your title. it is on prevention, about SCH, etc.??? you need to clearly specify it.

the document has many typo errors and needs major edition.

**********

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 #7: Yes:  Abdolreza Sotoodeh Jahromi

Reviewer #9: 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-24-22605_reviewer.pdf

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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 Nov 14 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,

Hammed Oladeji Mogaji, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. 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. 

2. 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:

Please revise the manuscript following the minor comments from the reviewers. While returning your revised manuscript, ensure you upload both the clean and tracked copy that has your changes.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #9: (No Response)

Reviewer #10: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: Partly

Reviewer #10: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #7: I Don't Know

Reviewer #9: N/A

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: No

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

Reviewer #7: Dear editor

Many thanks for your kind review invitation a manuscript " Knowledge, attitude and risky practice on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia: A scoping review ".

I would like to inform you that I had accepted the manuscript in revision-3 style.

Reviewer #9: Overall, the manuscript has a merit. to make the manuscript sound for readers, it is better if you consider my comments that I forwarded in the main manuscript.

Reviewer #10: 1. Title and Abstract

The phrase “risky practice” is grammatically incorrect; it should be “risky practices”.

The abstract is clear in stating the background and purpose. However, quantitative data should be provided where possible (e.g., number of studies included, participant characteristics).

Avoid vague statements like “studies found large differences…”—instead, provide specific findings or percentages for clarity.

2. Introduction

Clearly define what is meant by “risky practices” early on in this section. Is this referring to water contact, open defecation, etc.?

3. Methods

The search strategy is appropriate but needs more transparency. Provide the full search string, date last searched, and whether the search was peer-reviewed (PRESS standard).

Clarify why Google Scholar was included given its lower specificity for peer-reviewed literature.

4. Results

How were “good” or “poor” knowledge/attitudes/practices defined across studies? This lack of standardization complicates synthesis.

**********

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 #7: No

Reviewer #9: No

Reviewer #10: 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-24-22605_R4.pdf

Knowledge, attitude and risky practice on schistosomiasis in Ethiopia: A scoping review

PONE-D-24-22605R5

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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,

Hammed Oladeji Mogaji, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: