Dear Dr. Lawal,

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.

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

Dear authors,

The reviewers have carefully evaluated your manuscript, and both recommend that it be revised before further consideration. I invite you to submit a revised version that addresses all reviewer comments in detail. Please also include a point-by-point response letter outlining how you have handled each comment.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

Best regards,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 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,

Armin Moghimi

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 update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex .

3. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[National Institutes of Health

U54TW012041].

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.

5. Thank you for stating the following in your manuscript:

[This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, grant number U54TW012041.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[National Institutes of Health

U54TW012041]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Main data sources (PHIAs) are publicly available but have to be requested to the data curators themselves. The indexes described in these paper are publicly available and can be accessed here: https://zenodo.org/records/15484334].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

6. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [The INFORM Africa Study Group]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

7. Please upload a new copy of Figures 1 and 2 as the details are not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

8. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

9. 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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

The reviewers have carefully evaluated your manuscript, and both recommend that it be revised before further consideration. I invite you to submit a revised version that addresses all reviewer comments in detail. Please also include a point-by-point response letter outlining how you have handled each comment.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

Best regards,

[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: 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript offers a valuable approach to improving the Place Susceptibility Index (PSI) at the local government level in Sub-Saharan Africa. The study is well-organized and addresses a key issue: providing more detailed data on susceptibility, which can help in better managing public health and disaster response efforts. The methodology, which uses Bayesian spatial statistical modeling combined with PHIA data and geospatial factors, is strong and supports the findings effectively.

The results show clear differences in susceptibility across the 10 countries, helping to identify areas that are most vulnerable to disease outbreaks and natural disasters. The classification method used is helpful in uncovering important local variations that national datasets may overlook.

However, there are some areas that could be improved. The abstract, while thorough, could be shortened slightly for better clarity. Some of the references, particularly related to statistical methods and geospatial analysis, might need to be updated to reflect the latest research.

The discussion ties the results to practical applications, but it would be useful to offer more specific recommendations on how policymakers can use PSI. A more detailed conclusion, highlighting the broader impact of this work on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), would strengthen the manuscript.

Overall, this is a strong study that could make a significant impact with some minor revisions. It provides a useful tool for public health and disaster management in Africa.

Reviewer #2: The study is interesting, but it lacks proper validation, and the reliability of the findings in relation to the data screening process is questionable.

Comments

The manuscript is interesting and focuses on developing high-resolution PSIs for selected African countries. However, some revisions are necessary to strengthen the work. I recommend the authors consider the following major revisions and clarifications:

-Include more appropriate and precise keywords.

- Incorporate recent studies on PSI, especially those linking urban resilience with rapid urbanization, and clearly highlight the research gap connected to the novelty of this work. The introduction should explicitly present the key research questions, critical knowledge gaps, and how this study addresses them, supported with relevant references.

- The paper does not clearly explain how sampling strategies were employed to address variability. Provide more detail on data preprocessing steps (e.g., handling outliers, normalization, and sampling strategy).

- Expand on the processing details, including data sources, category types, spatial resolution, cloud filtering methods, calculations performed, and software used.

- Discuss the advantages of applying the Bayesian spatial statistical model prior to its use in this study. The authors could consider applying feature sensitivity or feature selection techniques to enhance the model’s application and improve the reliability of the findings.

- Justify the rationale for selecting the Jenks Classification method.

- Address the uncertainty of PSI model outputs. To improve robustness, incorporate uncertainty analyses such as standard deviation, coefficient of variation, Monte Carlo simulations, or entropy measures for each crop type, enabling spatial quantification of prediction uncertainty.

- Provide policy recommendations for areas classified as high and low Place Susceptibility zones, linking them to strategies for improving urban sustainability indicators. Provide an analysis of the relationship between high purchasing power parity and the life expectancy and birth rate across the selected provinces, and explain how these relate to the PSI outcomes.

- Add a dedicated subsection. While some limitations are noted, it would be valuable to include a summary table highlighting current gaps and possible future solutions.

- Revise the conclusion to reconstruct the key findings and emphasize how the outputs can be practically applied by government agencies, policymakers, and urban planners.

**********

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: Clara Ekpekose Oguji

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 . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Clara Oguji Comments and Suggestion.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PONE-D-25-28111.docx

Place Susceptibility Index Mapping at Local Government Scale from Population-based Survey for Sub-Saharan Africa

PONE-D-25-28111R1

Dear Dr. Lawal,

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,

Armin Moghimi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to inform you that we have received positive feedback from the reviewers on your revisions.

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all the comments and provided a good description of how and where they inserted the new information.

Reviewer #2: The authors are correctly answered the reviewers' comments and suggestions, and now the article has been accepted

**********

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: Clara Ekpekose Oguji

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chiranjit Singha

**********