https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2789-0480
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 18, 2023 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr Wilson, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The role of species ecology in predicting Toxoplasma gondii prevalence in wild and domesticated mammals globally" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Please respond to the reviewer's comments -- in particular, it is vital that you make all raw and analyzed data and their sources readily available. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out [2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file). Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments. Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Michael L Reese, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Pathogens James Collins III Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************** Please respond to the reviewer's comments -- in particular, it is vital that you make all raw and analyzed data and their sources readily available. Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Part I - Summary Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship. Reviewer #1: The authors applied a macroecological approach to elucidate the relative importance of different routes of transmission for Toxoplasma gondii, a globally-distributed parasite capable of infecting nearly all warm-blooded animals including humans, domestic animals and wildlife. Utilizing seroprevalence data from more than 1000 published studies, the ecology of Toxoplasma is described, highlighting the significance of anthropogenic alterations to ecosystems and aquatic systems for increased risk for transmission and exposure. ********** Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions. Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject". Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. Reviewer #1: Below are comments, questions, and suggested edits. Lines 28 and 99: Toxoplasma oocysts are not “free-living” but can survive for long periods of time in the environment. Lines 31, 41 and 50: I don’t think that “Susceptibility” is the correct word here. Susceptibility has to do with how susceptible an animal/person is to infection and associated disease and may be attributed to factors such as host immunologic status, host-parasite adaptation, etc. But this study does not examine the clinical aspects of infections. Consider reword to “exposure and infection”. Line 50: What is meant by “confirm”? Is this published elsewhere? Line 61: Toxoplasma does not cause severe health problems in most of the species it infects. Reword. Might instead write, “capable” of causing… Line 86: Suggest alternative word to “benefit”, such as relevance or importance. Line 144: “Toxoplasmosis” Is the disease manifested from the infection. Suggest change word to transmission. Lines 143-147: Suggest rewording these sentences to more effectively make your point that although waterborne transmission is a significant route in terrestrial mammals, it is predicted that aquatic mammals would have a higher rate of waterborne exposure and therefore higher prevalence of infection than terrestrial mammals. Line 148: Add “oocysts” so that sentence reads: Since T. gondii oocysts enter the aquatic system from… Can the authors comment on the varying methods used to determine Toxoplasma infection for prevalence calculations (e.g., MAT, PCR, etc.) and how the differences in sensitivity and specificity of the different test methods used across different studies included impact the model? In particular, assay validation in wildlife species. Figure 1: Do dark grey areas correspond to regions where no data is available? Suggest including statement in figure legend to describe the dark grey regions. S1 and S2 Tables: Suggest including the total number of each order and taxonomic family included in the prevalence estimation. Will the master dataset and list of publications included in the analysis be provided? ********** 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 Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org. Data Requirements: Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols References: 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr Wilson, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The role of species ecology in predicting Toxoplasma gondii prevalence in wild and domesticated mammals globally' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. Best regards, Michael L Reese, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Pathogens James Collins III Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr Wilson, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "The role of species ecology in predicting Toxoplasma gondii prevalence in wild and domesticated mammals globally," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. Best regards, Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens |
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 .