Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 25, 2024
Decision Letter - Fernanda Penido Matozinhos, Editor

-->PONE-D-24-13859-->-->Cervical cancer: Riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saldanha da Silva,

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 Apr 18 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,

Fernanda Penido Matozinhos, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“For granting two scholarships, through the Institutional Scientific Initiation Scholarship Program of the Universidade do Estado do Pará (Notice 046/2022), we would like to thank the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (In Portuguese, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) (https://www.gov.br/cnpq/pt-br), which benefited the author RLSS (Process 153917/2022-9), and Amazon Foundation to Support Studies and Research (In Portuguese, Fundação Amazônia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas) (https://www.fapespa.pa.gov.br/), which benefited the author SRCM (Registration 0048397).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

After careful consideration, I feel that it does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands.

The manuscript explores a very important topic, but there are major weaknesses in the results – they are not clear.

Kind regards,

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

-->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

**********

-->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: 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: Title: Cervical cancer: Riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures

Since this is a very specific population (riverside women from the Brazilian Amazon region), it would be interesting to highlight the nationality of this study in the title, since “Riverside” is a very generic term. Several articles in the journal PLOS ONE include the nationality of the study in the title, especially when it is a description of characteristics that are very specific to a population, without any intention of extrapolating the data, as is the case with this study.

Suggestion: “Cervical cancer: Amazonian riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures” or “Cervical cancer: Brazilian riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures”. Readers more familiar with the topic will know that the Brazilian Amazon region is a “hot spot” for cervical cancer, helping the reader to know whether or not this manuscript is of interest to them.

Abstract:

- Objectives, Methodology and Results – adequate

- Conclusion: Wouldn't it be better to mention some of the "gaps" in the knowledge found? Wouldn't it be better to put these gaps in the results?

Introduction:

The first two paragraphs provide information on cervical carcinogenesis, with an emphasis on the molecular role of HPV. This could be removed, as this is known information that is not of interest to this manuscript (only mentioning the role of HPV, without emphasis on molecular mechanisms). In this way, the authors could add information about studies that seek to improve screening strategies, corroborating the statistical data that the authors presented, which place the Brazilian Amazon region as a target for a closer look at this disease.

Therefore, for contextualization purposes, I suggest that quantitative studies on the prevalence of HPV infection in riverside and indigenous women, innovative methods of self-collection and molecular diagnosis of HPV for women living in isolated regions (riverside and indigenous) in Amazonas, Pará, Roraima be added, as we already have published articles on this, including in the journal PLOS ONE. These studies provide a lot of information on socioeconomic and clinical-behavioral characteristics related to HPV and other sexually transmitted pathogens that are quite comparable to the results of this study, and, taken together, provide a more complete view of the vulnerability situation of riverside women.

Methodology

- Adequate.

Results:

The descriptive sociodemographic and clinical results would be better understood in a table (first 3 paragraphs). These data are very important, as they characterize the population under study. Even though the authors have described certain aspects of the Cotijuba community in the Methodology, it is these sociodemographic data that confirm the vulnerability of these women. It is therefore necessary to make it easier for the reader to access these data so that the reader can better follow the discussion.

Discussion:

Adequate.

**********

-->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

**********

[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.-->

Revision 1

We thank the reviewers for their relevant contributions and for their kindness in evaluating the manuscript. When reviewing the manuscript, we took into account their suggestions/recommendations, always aiming to improve the quality of the text. In the manuscript (revised version with change control), the adjustments are highlighted with a green bar. As instructed by the journal, we would like to point out that, in addition to this version with change control, we have also attached a version without markings, the content of which is similar to that of the version with markings.

We are available for any further assistance. Below, we present the reviewers’ comments and suggestions/recommendations, with the expressions “1) ACADEMIC EDITOR’S OPINION” and “2) REVIEWER’S OPINION”, as well as our respective comments.

1) ACADEMIC EDITOR’S OPINION:

Dear author,

- After careful analysis, I feel that the manuscript does not fully meet the PLoS ONE publication criteria, as it currently stands. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: We are aware! We have made the necessary efforts to improve the text and increase its potential to contribute to the advancement of knowledge, according to the suggestions/recommendations of the reviewers. Therefore, we understand that the text, as it stands at this time, is capable of continuing the evaluation and editorial processes, with a view to possibly obtaining acceptance for publication).

- The manuscript explores a very important topic, but there are weaknesses in the results – they are not clear. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Before being submitted to PLoS ONE, the text underwent rigorous language review, which was signed by the technical manager of LSB Traduções [Cadastro Nacional de Pessoa Jurídica – CNPJ: 28.340.353/0001-50], a reputable company that provides text review and translation services in Brazil. As proof of its respectability, this company was accredited by several qualified scientific journals in the field of nursing in the country, such as Acta Paulista de Enfermagem [APE – ISSN: 1982-0194], Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem [REBEn – ISSN: 1984-0446) and Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP [REEUSP – ISSN: 1980-220X]. Therefore, we respectfully understand that the Results meet the textual clarity required to be understood, which is why the Ad Hoc Reviewer, who evaluated this manuscript, did not make any comments or suggestions/recommendations that would indicate the lack of clarity in this section).

2) REVIEWER’S OPINION:

TITLE: Cervical cancer: Riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures.

- Since this is a very specific population (riverside women in the Brazilian Amazon), it would be interesting to highlight the nationality of this study in the title, since “Riverside” is a very generic term. Several articles in the journal PLoS ONE include the nationality of the study in the title, especially when it is a description of very specific characteristics of a population, with no intention of extrapolating the data, as is the case with this study.

Suggestion: “Cervical cancer: Amazonian riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures” or “Cervical cancer: Brazilian riverside women’s knowledge about preventive measures”. Readers more familiar with the topic will know that the Brazilian Amazon region is a “hot spot” for cervical cancer, helping the reader to know whether or not this manuscript is of interest to them. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Met! We have adjusted the title to read: “Cervical cancer: Riverside women’s knowledge in the Brazilian Amazon about preventive measures”).

ABSTRACT:

- Objectives, Methodology, and Results: Adequate. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Aware!).

- Conclusion: Wouldn’t it be better to mention some of the “gaps” in the knowledge found? Wouldn’t it be better to put these gaps in the results? (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Met! We have adjusted the Results and Conclusion of the Abstract, highlighting gaps specifically in the Results).

INTRODUCTION:

- The first two paragraphs provide information on cervical carcinogenesis, with an emphasis on the molecular role of HPV. This could be removed, as it is known information that is not relevant to this manuscript (only mentioning the role of HPV, without emphasis on molecular mechanisms). In this way, the authors could add information on studies that seek to improve screening strategies, corroborating the statistical data that the authors presented, which place the Brazilian Amazon region as a target for a closer look at this disease. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Granted!).

- Therefore, for contextualization purposes, I suggest that quantitative studies on the prevalence of HPV infection in riverside and indigenous women, innovative methods of self-collection and molecular diagnosis of HPV for women living in isolated regions (riverside and indigenous) in Amazonas, Pará, Roraima be added, as we already have articles published on this, including in the journal PLoS ONE. These studies provide a wealth of information on socioeconomic and clinical-behavioral characteristics related to HPV and other sexually transmitted pathogens that are quite comparable to the results of this study and, together, provide a more complete view of the vulnerability of riverine women. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Granted! In the Introduction, in general, we have removed information on the molecular mechanisms of HIV infection and incorporated studies that address the evidence and information requested by the Reviewer. Thus, the content of this section has been expanded, aiming to better direct you to the pertinent aspects of the topic).

METHODOLOGY:

- Adequate. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Aware!).

RESULTS:

- The descriptive sociodemographic and clinical results would be better understood in a table (first 3 paragraphs). These data are very important, as they characterize the population under study. Although the authors described certain aspects of the Cotijuba community in the Methodology, it is these sociodemographic data that confirm the vulnerability of these women. Therefore, it is necessary to facilitate the reader’s access to these data so that they can better follow the Discussion. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Received! At the beginning of the Results, we created a table to detail the variables of the sociodemographic and clinical profile of the participants. Thus, in the first two paragraphs of this section, we highlight the predominant information, indicating that readers should look at the table to access the details).

DISCUSSION:

- Adequate. (AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Aware!).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Marianne Clemence, Editor

Cervical cancer: Riverside women’s knowledge in the Brazilian Amazon about preventive measures

PONE-D-24-13859R1

Dear Dr. Saldanha da Silva,

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,

Marianne Clemence

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please could you provide a copy of the interview guide as a supporting information file with your final set of files for publication

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

-->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: I find the subject of this article very interesting. While qualitative research is not commonly featured in this journal, the topic is highly relevant, given that the Brazilian Amazon region stands out nationally in matters related to the prevalence of cervical cancer.

As a piece of qualitative research, I consider the article appropriate. The authors have made all the suggested modifications and corrections. Therefore, I deem it suitable 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

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Marianne Clemence, Editor

PONE-D-24-13859R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Saldanha da Silva,

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 Marianne Clemence

Staff Editor

PLOS One

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 .