Dear Dr. Gonçalves,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 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 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,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->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 include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.-->--> -->-->3. 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.-->--> -->-->4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. ?>

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

Reviewers' comments:

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:

Comments to the Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses a relevant and socially sensitive topic by discussing care practices, popular knowledge, and health promotion among quilombola women. The study presents important merits, such as the valorization of traditional knowledge, the timeliness of the references, and the adoption of a qualitative approach consistent with the object of investigation. However, some methodological, conceptual, and editorial aspects need to be revised to strengthen the clarity, internal consistency, and transparency of the manuscript.

General Comments

In general, the manuscript would benefit from greater methodological precision and adjustments in the presentation of results, especially regarding the description of analytical procedures, the consistency between text and presented materials, and the explicit mention of some theoretical frameworks used throughout the text. Major Comments

Redundancy in the description of the hermeneutic-dialectical approach:

In the Materials and Methods section, two consecutive paragraphs describe the hermeneutic-dialectical approach in a very similar way, reiterating the thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement and the socio-historical contradictions. It is recommended to condense these passages into a single, more concise paragraph in order to avoid conceptual repetition and improve the flow of the methodological section.

Insufficient description of the statistical dimension of the textual analysis (IRAMUTEQ):

The authors state that the analysis in IRAMUTEQ allowed the identification of words with statistically significant association (p < 0.0001). However, they do not explain which statistical procedures were used (e.g., chi-square test), nor the meaning of this p-value in the context of Descending Hierarchical Classification, nor how these associations supported the interpretation of the results. It is recommended to detail these aspects to ensure greater transparency and reproducibility of the analysis.

Mention of a table missing from the manuscript:

The text refers to “Table 1” in the sociodemographic characterization of the participants; however, this table was not included in the submitted file nor presented as supplementary material. The inclusion of Table 1 or a revision of the text is requested, ensuring consistency between the body of the manuscript and the materials provided.

Exclusion criteria and potentially stigmatizing language:

The exclusion criterion described as “women with mental health-related needs” can be interpreted broadly and in a stigmatizing way. It is suggested that the passage be reformulated, explicitly stating that the exclusion refers to cognitive or communicational limitations that would prevent the understanding of the questions or adequate participation in the interviews, and not to the mental health condition itself.

Minor comments:

Duplicate references:

Duplication of the same reference was identified, listed twice (refs. 22 and 28). It is recommended to unify the referencing and adjust the numbering of citations throughout the text.

Conceptual precision in the use of some references:

The reference to Minayo (2021), which presents a critique of the uncritical use of the concept of "social determinants of health," is used in the text without explicitly stating this critical position. Greater conceptual precision is suggested when engaging with this work.

Concepts mentioned without direct reference:

Some relevant concepts such as environmental racism, institutional racism, and coloniality of knowledge appear in the text without explicit reference in the corresponding paragraphs. It is recommended to include specific citations that support these statements.

Use of broad theoretical frameworks that are not fully explored:

Classic authors such as Habermas and Gadamer are cited to support the hermeneutic-dialectical approach, but are not analytically revisited throughout the text. It is suggested to evaluate the need to maintain them or deepen their articulation with the empirical analysis. Final Considerations

The suggested revisions aim to improve the methodological clarity, internal coherence, and analytical rigor of the manuscript. Incorporating these adjustments tends to strengthen the study's contribution to the field of public health and social sciences in health.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is of excellent quality, well-written, and presents robust research with findings of great importance. I suggest, if possible, a brief reflection on the role of men in care practices (even if secondary or different) or on the participants' perceptions regarding this could add an extra layer of complexity to the gender analysis. These suggestions only aim to improve a work that already stands out for its rigor and relevance. The publication of this article will certainly contribute to a deeper and more respectful understanding of quilombola health practices and to the advancement of more equitable and culturally sensitive health policies in Brazil.

**********

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: Yes: Pedro Agnel Dias Miranda Neto

**********

[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.

Care practices, popular knowledge, and health promotion among quilombola woman in Brazil

PONE-D-25-63692R1

Dear Dr. Gonçalves,

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,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********