PONE-D-25-26138

Modeling HBV transmission dynamics in Indonesia (2024–2030) using a SIVRM model: evaluating optimal control strategies for elimination by 2030

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arkok,

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.

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

Your manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field. Both identified many important issues in your submission. Please review the attached comments and provide point-by-point responses.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• 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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

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 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.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data cannot be shared publicly because of legal and ethical restrictions. Data are available from the the Social Security Administrator for Health (BPJS Kesehatan and the Indonesian Ministry of Health for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Requests for access to the data can be submitted to BPJS Kesehatan and the Indonesian Ministry of Health via their official websites or by contacting them directly.].

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.

4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: \section*{Comments:}

\subsection*{1. Abstract \& Introduction}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item \textbf{Abstract:} The current abstract does not logically present the study's findings. Please restructure it to clearly outline:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item Objectives

\item Methodology

\item Key results

\item Conclusions

\end{itemize}

in a coherent sequence.

\item \textbf{Objective \& Novelty:} The primary aim and novelty of the study are not clearly defined. These should be explicitly stated in the introduction, preferably before Section~2.

\item \textbf{Research Gap:} Add a dedicated subsection under ``Research Gap'' to the introduction, explaining how this study addresses limitations in existing literature.

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{2. Citations \& Referencing}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item \textbf{Citation Format:} All in-text citations are incorrectly formatted (e.g., ``(1)'' should be ``[1]''). Ensure compliance with the required referencing style.

\item \textbf{Completeness:} Verify that all references, figures, and tables are properly cited in the text.

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{3. Grammar \& Punctuation}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item Numerous grammatical and punctuation errors exist throughout. Examples:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item \textbf{Page 4:} \comment{``Monitoring for HBV reactivation is crucial in patients who are at risk, and sensitive assays are needed for detection (9).''} $\rightarrow$ ``Monitoring for HBV reactivation is crucial in patients who are at risk, and sensitive assays are needed for detection \textbf{[9]}.''

\item \textbf{Page 3:} \comment{``(4) Horizontal transmission can occur through exposure to infected blood and body fluids, such as saliva, vaginal fluids, and semen.''} $\rightarrow$ ``Horizontal transmission can occur through exposure to infected blood and body fluids, including saliva, vaginal secretions, and semen \textbf{[4]}.''

\end{itemize}

\item Revise similar errors across the entire document.

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{4. Clarity \& Redundancy}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item \textbf{SIVRM Model:} The statement \comment{``this study aimed to construct a valid and reliable SIVRM (Susceptible--Infected--Vaccinated--Recovered--Mortality attributed to hepatitis B virus) mathematical and epidemiological model to simulate the transmission dynamics of Hepatitis B in Indonesia from 2019 to 2023''} is unclear and repetitive. After initial definition, use only the acronym.

\item \textbf{HBV Repetition:} The term ``HBV'' is overused. Replace with synonyms (e.g., ``hepatitis B virus,'' ``the virus'') where appropriate.

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{5. Manuscript Structure}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item Add a paragraph at the end of the introduction summarizing the paper's organization:

\begin{quote}

``The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section~2 describes the methodology, Section~3 presents the results, and Section~4 discusses the implications.''

\end{quote}

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{6. Mathematical Presentation}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item \textbf{Symbols \& Equations:}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item \textbf{Table 1:} Symbols must be formatted as equations (e.g., $\beta$ instead of ``beta'').

\end{itemize}

\item \textbf{Parameter Estimation (Page 14 \& Table 2):} The methods for parameter estimation are missing. Provide detailed procedures (e.g., data sources, fitting techniques).

\item \textbf{Mathematical Errors:}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item The Jacobian and transmission matrices contain inaccuracies. Recheck all derivations.

\item \textbf{Endemic Equilibrium (EE) \& Reproduction Number ($R_0$):} The analysis is incomplete. Include calculations for EE and $R_0$ with theoretical justification.

\end{itemize}

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{7. Computational Results}

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,nosep]

\item None of the numerical results are supported by theoretical analysis. Justify all computational findings with rigorous mathematical proofs or references.

\end{itemize}

\section*{Recommendation}

Due to the pervasive issues in clarity, mathematical correctness, and presentation, the manuscript requires substantial revision. \textbf{I cannot recommend publication in its current state.}

Even I am not sure whether it's possible to overcome, especially the theoretical analysis. \\

The large number of compartments is supportive only if we can develop the analytic results.

\section*{Remark} To focus both modeling, parameter estimation and data analysis, you may read the following articles if you prefer

\noindent 1. Mohammad KM, Akhi AA, Kamrujjaman M. (2025) Bifurcation analysis of an influenza A (H1N1) model with treatment and vaccination. PLoS ONE 20(1): e0315280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315280\\

2. Kazi Mehedi Mohammad and Md. Kamrujjaman, Stochastic Differential Equations to Model Influenza Transmission with Continuous and

Discrete-Time Markov Chains, {\em Alexandria Engineering Journal}, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2024.10.012. \\

3. Faizunnesa Khondaker, Md. Kamrujjaman, and Md. Shahidul Islam, Cost-effectiveness of dengue control strategies in Bangladesh: An optimal

control and ACER-ICER analysis, Acta Tropica, Volume 264, April 2025, 107587, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2025.107587.

Reviewer #2: The article investigates Modeling HBV transmission dynamics in Indonesia (2024–2030) using a SIVRM

model: evaluating optimal control strategies for elimination by 2030. This work has a potential and my comments are as follows:

- First of all, similarity index is very high, please reduce it.

- Please add the main findings and objective of the current study in the abstract.

- What are the benchmark cases in your study?

- What are the special cases of your study?

- Table needs to be referenced.

- Main equations and propositions need to be referenced.

- Punctuation is missing after some equations.

- Try to show more of the physical situation in the results and discussion to reflect the proposed notion of the wholestudy.

- For enhancing the introduction section with the new publications, old references may be replaced with new onessuch as: https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.11154

https://doi.org/10.53391/mmnsa.1461011

https://doi.org/10.1080/02286203.2024.2371684

https://doi.org/10.3390/computation11070143

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-25-26138R1

Modeling HBV transmission dynamics in Indonesia (2024–2030) using a SIVRM model: evaluating optimal control strategies for elimination by 2030

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arkok,

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 01 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• 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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your revised manuscript was reviewed by two original reviewers. Although one reviewer was satisfied with your suggested modifications, the other identified important problems with the figures. Please improve quality of figures and resubmit.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please redraw all the figures once again. None of the figures are readable, neither legend, nor axis level and the figures breaks the originality.

Reviewer #2: The authors has addressed all the comments satisfactorily; the paper can be accepted in the present form

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-25-26138R2

Modeling HBV transmission dynamics in Indonesia (2024–2030) using a SIVRM model: evaluating optimal control strategies for elimination by 2030

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arkok,

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.

==============================The reviewer still identified many important problems in your revised manuscript. Please consider carefully the attached comments. It is exceptionally important that you respond thoroughly to all points in the review. ==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• 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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript (R2) still contains a significant number of fundamental errors, suggesting that the revisions were not performed with sufficient care and diligence. The writing remains problematic, and although some issues like sentence completion and citation formatting were addressed, the core content has major flaws. These deficiencies are so substantial that they undermine the validity of the work.

Justification:

The large number of persistent errors indicates a lack of scholarly rigor and attention to detail. This raises serious concerns about the overall quality and reliability of the research.

The "very careless writing" observed in the revised version is unprofessional. A revised manuscript should demonstrate a clear effort to address all issues raised by reviewers, not introduce new problems through hasty and negligent revisions.

Given the fundamental issues with the writing and content that remain in the second round of review, the manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in this journal.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

**********

[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.

Modeling HBV transmission dynamics in Indonesia (2024–2030) using a SIVRM model: evaluating optimal control strategies for elimination by 2030

PONE-D-25-26138R3

Dear Dr. Arkok,

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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all points and made necessary correction's. now it's recommended for publication

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

**********