Dear Dr. Mogharabian,

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.

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

Key Areas for Improvement:

1. Work on the total organization of the paper (Reviewer #1 and #2).

In summary, I encourage you to address all the reviewers' comments and make the necessary revisions. I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mogharabian. 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,

Godwin Banafo Akrong, 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Data will be available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.”

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.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting this protocol. This is an interesting subject in our daily fertility care.

I have few comments to address.

1. The PCCT framework table formatting is confusing in its current form. Please revise for clarity

2. It is not clear what kind of translation (as mentioned in the acknowledgement) has been conducted using AI.

3. While it is common practice in a scoping review to skip formal quality appraisal, a brief justification would strengthen the rationale. We have faced this issue before when top tier journals demanded that we assess the quality of included studies in a scoping review.

4. A final language check would improve readability of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The article is written like a proposal. It is futuristic and reads more like a scoping review guideline for the authors, than like a completed research protocol. It is clear on the existing gap in literature about infertility screening in unmarried men and captures what the authors research intents are, including the protocol they plan to adopt. As a guideline for embarking on the scoping review, it offers sufficient detail on the processes and procedures it plans to follow. However, it is lacking in detail as to whether these activities have actually been undertaken, how they were undertaken, the processes for administering or applying the PRISMA-ScR protocol, what the outcomes are and the implications for future research in that field.

As it stands, the scoping review is yet to be conducted.

Other Observations:

In line 65, mention is made of polycystic ovary syndrome, this is not a factor in male infertility.

In line 173, 'we've' should be written in full as 'we have'.

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Mogharabian,

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.

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

Alongside addressing all the Reviewers' concerns, please specifically focus on the following:

• The methods should be detailed enough to ensure reproducibility and prevent undisclosed flexibility.
• Include appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication to ensure robust and reproducible data.
• The exploratory aspects of the analysis should be explicitly described.
• Reference was made to the PRISMA-ScR framework, but the protocol does not fully adhere to its 14-step process.
• Specify whether data synthesis will be conducted inductively, deductively, or both.
• The exclusion criteria and data synthesis process require further refinement and clarification.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 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,

Godwin Banafo Akrong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #2: The authors indicate that their submission is a scoping review protocol designed to transparently present a detailed research plan prior to its execution, not the actual completed review. The article offers comprehensive insights into what the authors intend to do, and evidences an in-depth review of literature on the subject matter.

However, I doubt that the use of the word 'protocol' to describe the article is appropriate, particularly as they allude to the use of the PRISMA-ScR which is a known, widely used scoping review protocol. Consequently, referring to their submission as a protocol may only confuse the intended audience, since this submission actually reads like a research design/methodology that is focused on a specific area of research.

They state in lines 16 and 17 that 'the aim of this scoping review is to understand the scope and nature of evidence related to infertility screening in unmarried men'; and in lines 37 to 39, that 'this scoping review will summarize the evidence on infertility screening in unmarried men, highlighting diverse types of screening, potential benefits and harms/drawbacks of infertility screening, and knowledge gaps.' These statements seem to imply that the article is a scoping review report, yet it only reflects some, not all of the 14-step framework outlined in lines 124 to 137, and so is inconclusive.

On this basis, I advise that the scoping review be conducted and properly reported, such that it effectively captures all the stages of the 14-step framework, and the primary and secondary outcomes outlined in the objective. This will prevent any lack of clarity or confusion on the actual focus of the article.

Thereafter, it can be resubmitted for consideration for publication.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors planned to review the scope of the literature on screening for male infertility among unmarried men. This is a usual research piece.

Find my few comments below:

Abstract:

1. Structure the abstract as follows: Background/Introduction including the primary goal, Methods including the eligibility criteria, Results (not applicable), Conclusion (not applicable). The protocol should focus on the background, objective and methods.

Methods

1. This is a study protocol, kindly use future tenses not past tense. See lines, 112, 113, 140, 154, 158, 165, 166, 175, 176 and so on. Replace "was, were" with "will" as appropriate.

2. In the exclusion criteria, remove the exclusion of married men. This is because the study included only unmarried men, hence, by definition married men are excluded.

3. Consider including only original articles with primary or may be secondary data. I don't think review articles should be included.

3. Exclusion of articles should be only based on not meeting the exclusion criteria, not necessarily those who the index authors could get the full article from the authors. However, if an article is considered to be included but the authors could not get access to the full manuscript, a consideration could be made to extract information from the abstract or consider these set of studies as a possible limitation for the scoping review.

4. The authors categorized the selected articles as included, probably included and excluded. How will the "probably included" be finally disposed?

5. The process of data synthesis: Is this going to be done inductively or deductively or both?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Mogharabian,

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.

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

I encourage you to address all of Reviewer #4's comments and make the necessary revisions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 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,

Godwin Banafo Akrong, 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #4: Comment 1

Abstract: Please remove results (not applicable), Conclusion (not applicable), just don’t include the heading in the abstract. Just write the Introduction, Methods, and go straight to Discussion.

Comment 2

PCC line 102 under participants: Correct grammar in this; Unmarried men with receiving infertility treatment or married women. What does that mean?

Comment 3

Excludes men "receiving infertility treatment" please clarify

Comment 4

Write this in full; Infertility Screening (methods, protocols, practices, …), this is so unclear/ vague, what specific aspects of screening.

It is important to define this term for clarity: infertility screening – in this protocol what are you referring to? Clearly define the terms screening and treatment such that they are distinguished. What methods are you referring to?

Comment 5

Context – This is too vague, any geographical location and setting, with no exclusion seems very broad appears unrealistically. What are your intentions? Limiting to certain healthcare settings?

1. Are the authors truly interested in ALL contexts equally?

2. How will they synthesize findings across vastly different settings?

3. Will contextual variation be explored as part of the analysis?

Comment 6

After reading this protocol again, I still have so many queries:

While the authors mention "evolving societal norms" and "changing relationship patterns" (lines 48-49), the rationale for specifically focusing on unmarried men rather than all men has not been fully justified.

1. Why does marital status matter for screening approaches, protocols, or outcomes?

2. How do screening considerations differ between married and unmarried men beyond the absence of a partner?

3. What unique barriers, facilitators, or clinical considerations apply specifically to unmarried men?

4. What is driving this focus on unmarried men driven? Is it clinical or something else? Please make it clear and understandable

Comment 7

Perhaps the authors should include a Definitions and Scope section that clearly delineates all ambiguous terms. A protocol is supposed to be reproducible, and this can only be achieved if all sections are clear and well defined. This protocol needs additional work to enhance its reproducibility; clarity is crucial.

**********

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 #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments2.docx

Dear Dr. Mogharabian,

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 Jan 01 2026 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,

Godwin Banafo Akrong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The authors have responded satisfactorily to the initial comments. However, a few inconsistencies as shown below:

1. In the abstract section, review articles were included while in the method section (i.e., eligibility), reviews were excluded. I suggest you exclude review articles from the scoping review. If they are previous reviews on the subject, you will need to justify why the current review.

2. Kindly expunge unmarried women from the exclusion criteria. The review focuses on unmarried man. There is no need excluding the unmarried women because by the including only unmarried men, the unmarried women are already excluded.

3. How many members of the team will be involved in reviewing the selection in Raygan?

Reviewer #4: Although the response to my Comment 4 was not entirely satisfactory, I noted that the authors addressed this point in the Key Definitions and Scope section. Overall, the authors have adequately addressed my queries, and I believe the manuscript provides valuable knowledge and is suitable for publication.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

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 Feb 02 2026 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 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,

Godwin Banafo Akrong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thorough revisions. You have addressed all my comments clearly and comprehensively. The manuscript is now much stronger, and I have no further concerns. Well done.

Reviewer #5: The manuscript reports a scoping review protocol designed to understand the scope and nature

of evidence related to infertility screening in unmarried men. This is an important issue in

reproductive health and has had limited investigation globally. The protocol is detailed and is

well written, and I believe would lead to a more substantive understanding of the research

question in the international literature.

I have only a few recommendations as follows:

Novelty – the research question is novel and will galvanize future research, policy, and practice

around infertility in unmarried men.

Internal validity – the protocol for the review is well described and if well implemented will

enable replicability and the elicitation of accurate research results. However, the question of

men who may not be married but may have experienced previous fertility or attempts at fertility was not addressed. This should be considered either as an exclusion criterion, or possibly as a limitation of the study.

External validity – I believe the study strengths and limitations as well as the implications of the results for policy and practice should be discussed under the section on discussion.

Grammatical flow and understanding – the manuscript reads well with good flow of ideas.

However, there are a few typos that need to be addressed before the paper is 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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Friday Okonofua

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE review December 2025.docx

Infertility Screening in Unmarried Men: A Scoping Review Protocol

PONE-D-25-15832R5

Dear Dr. Mogharabian,

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,

Godwin Banafo Akrong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #5: The manuscript provides a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions.

**********

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 #5: Yes: Prof Friday Okonofua

**********