Animal abuse by falsification–Recognition amongst the veterinary profession in The Netherlands

Ineke R. van Herwijnen; Daphne G. L. van Helvoort; Nadieh Reinders; Claudia M. Vinke

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345067

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 27, 2025
1 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Selim Adewale Alarape, Editor Dear Dr. Herwijnen, 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 18 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, Selim Adewale Alarape, MVPH 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 include a new copy of Table S4 in your manuscript; the current table is difficult to read. Please follow the link for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/tables 3. 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. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 context of the article titled "Animal abuse by falsification – recognition amongst the veterinary profession in The Netherland" is highly appreciable in this era of the sociological need to assess human-animal interactions. The novelty is awesome. However, there is need to look at the following areas for possible amendments to add value to the write up: 1. Line 33-35: There is need for modification and or recapping of the statement. The present forms is more of history than science!. What is the problem statement?. Highlight the gap in knowledge with this sentence. 2. Line 38: What is vet tech? Please, write fully for readers who are not from your field to understand. 3.Line 50-51: What is the essence of the last sentence? 4. Line 78: .......is unknown. Where? Mention the name of the country 5. Line 119: Participants 6. Line 123: What is vet tech?? 7. The conclusion is not shown as a distinct subheadings like Results and Discussion. Please, carve the Conclusion out of the discussion. 8. No DOI for the articles listed under the references. Reviewer #2: Line 36-" perplexing presentation has been mentioned'' include reference so we know who is being referred to. Line 46- Reporting of AAF in this sample was low. this statement is too short and should be merged with previous statement Line 47- does the 92% reported here inclusive of the participants that indicated they are unsure and have not seen such cases? I dont think these categories should be in this line 59- recast the sentence like outcome may include instead of outcome may regard Line 67: among not amongst line 74- cant start a sentence with or, please recast or merge line 77-82: recast the sentence to have a better flow, Line 85- switching among Line 178- majority were veterinarians delete was a Lines 110 and 120- Repeating the same information. Can you please recast the sentence for better clarity to be like we recruited...................... via e mail and platform Line 164- reframe the sentence ''how likely they thought a case to regard AAF,' line 200- 31.8% cannot be termed more since 51.2 % already indicated, please remove more and recast the sentence -- Create a footnote for table 1, what is PU-PD 290-291- e.g. (4) what is the meaning of this? please clarify Line 291- This, as some participants responded that they recognise as an indication of AAF'' please recast for clarity Line 297-298-- statement is disjointed, please recast line 304- please recast ****** 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: Olufemi Mobolaji Alabi P.hD Reviewer #2: Yes: Bukola O. Oyebanji ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345067.r001
Revision 1
10 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to each point raised: 2. Please include a new copy of Table S4 in your manuscript; the current table is difficult to read. Please follow the link for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/tables Thank you for suggesting this change, we have tried several variants. We have now added a supplement table with larger font size, while still keeping the data in one table. Keeping the information in one table was deemed beneficial by our test readers. Reviewer #1: The context of the article titled "Animal abuse by falsification – recognition amongst the veterinary profession in The Netherland" is highly appreciable in this era of the sociological need to assess human-animal interactions. The novelty is awesome. However, there is need to look at the following areas for possible amendments to add value to the write up: Thank you for this appreciated feedback, your reviewing time and suggestions, that helped us improve the manuscript. 1. Line 33-35: There is need for modification and or recapping of the statement. The present forms is more of history than science!. What is the problem statement?. Highlight the gap in knowledge with this sentence. We have adapted our presentation of the topic at hand in the first three lines of the abstract. 2. Line 38: What is vet tech? Please, write fully for readers who are not from your field to understand. Thank you for this suggestion, we have replaced ‘tech’ with ‘technician’ throughout. 3.Line 50-51: What is the essence of the last sentence? We have removed the last sentence of the abstract. 4. Line 78: .......is unknown. Where? Mention the name of the country We have added the USA region. 5. Line 119: Participants We have adapted the title of this section. 6. Line 123: What is vet tech?? Thank you for this suggestion, we have replaced ‘tech’ with ‘technician’ throughout. 7. The conclusion is not shown as a distinct subheadings like Results and Discussion. Please, carve the Conclusion out of the discussion. We have added a conclusion section. 8. No DOI for the articles listed under the references. We have added the DOI to the articles in the reference list. Reviewer #2: Thank you for your time and comments that helped to improve our manuscript. Line 36-" perplexing presentation has been mentioned'' include reference so we know who is being referred to. Thank you for your suggestion. We are not customary to adding references to an abstract, but have provided references in the Introduction section. Line 46- Reporting of AAF in this sample was low. this statement is too short and should be merged with previous statement We have merged this sentence and the sentence thereafter. Line 47- does the 92% reported here inclusive of the participants that indicated they are unsure and have not seen such cases? I dont think these categories should be in this Reporting was indeed reportedly never done by 92.1% (N=81), 4.5% (N=4) reported AAF as animal abuse, 3.4% (N=3) didn’t know. line 59- recast the sentence like outcome may include instead of outcome may regard Thank you for this suggestion, which we adhered to. Line 67: among not amongst As far as we are aware, amongst is more commonly used in British English, but we have adapted to among, hoping this is in accord with PLOS One. line 74- cant start a sentence with or, please recast or merge Thank you for this suggestion, which we adhered to. line 77-82: recast the sentence to have a better flow, We have rewritten this section. It now reads: ‘A USA-based study indicated that the true incidence or prevalence of AAF is unknown [2]. The few available scientific studies on the topic, often present cases and do not provide epidemiological data [2]. An example is a UK-based study including six cases identified by veterinarians and three cases included by the researchers as possible AAF cases [13]. In this total of nine cases, signs were noted in the animals, that corresponded with signs in child abuse cases. The respective signs regarded the animal owner’s attention seeking behaviour, recovery of the animal upon owner-separation, serial incidents, real and likely factitious clinical signs, abnormal biochemical profiles, deliberately inflicted injury, tempering with surgical sites and switching from veterinary clinics [13].’ Line 85- switching among This sentence was adapted. Line 178- majority were veterinarians delete was a This sentence was adapted. Lines 110 and 120- Repeating the same information. Can you please recast the sentence for better clarity to be like we recruited...................... via e mail and platform Unfortunately PLOS One requires the ethical statement to be formulated as is and our reading panel judged it necessary to present the information that you point at also at the second location to facilitate the readers. Line 164- reframe the sentence ''how likely they thought a case to regard AAF,' This sentence was adapted. line 200- 31.8% cannot be termed more since 51.2 % already indicated, please remove more and recast the sentence Thank you for pointing out the unclarity in our writing. We have rewritten this text as: ‘51.2% (N=45) indicated to likely see cases. 4.6% (N=4) indicated to certainly see cases, 12.5% (N=11) indicated to certainly not see cases in their clinic. A relatively high percentage of 31.8% (N=28) indicated ‘don’t know’.’ -- Create a footnote for table 1, what is PU-PD Thank you for this suggestion. We added ‘polyuria-polydipsia’ between brackets behind the abbreviation. 290-291- e.g. (4) what is the meaning of this? please clarify We have rewritten this text section, taking away the unclarity. Line 291- This, as some participants responded that they recognise as an indication of AAF'' please recast for clarity We have rewritten this text section, taking away the unclarity. Line 297-298-- statement is disjointed, please recast We have rewritten this text section, taking away the unclarity. line 304- please recast This text was adapted. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345067.r002
2 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Selim Adewale Alarape, Editor Animal abuse by falsification – recognition amongst the veterinary profession in the Netherlands PONE-D-25-67684R1 Dear Dr. Herwijnen, 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, Selim Adewale Alarape, MVPH Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345067.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Selim Adewale Alarape, Editor PONE-D-25-67684R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Herwijnen, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Selim Adewale Alarape Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345067.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .