All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for addressing all of the comments left by the two previous reviewers. They are satisfied that you have responded to all of their comments, and the manuscript is now ready to proceed for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed the comments I made.
The experimental design is okay.
The manuscript validate their findings in their explanation and conclusion.
All the rebuttal discussion has been reviewed and deemed acceptable. Standards required have been met. Apart from tinkering with one or two phrases, the manuscript is now clearer and communicates well with amendments included by revision. The English used is now clearer and unambiguous.
One reference was deleted.
The article was professional.
MS was self-contained within the hypothesis.
This was an extension of previous literature with an original aspect.
The research question, while theoretical, bears thought and is meaningful.
The authors have attempted to advance a model of schistosomiasis infection decrease, moving towards elimination.
Methodology has already been approved.
Confidence in validity of the model.
Sufficient date provided to support theory
Conclusions are satisfactory
Good paper which will add to the literature.
The reviewers have written several detailed comments on each section of the manuscript to facilitate amendments that will improve the manuscript. The reviewers appear to be in agreement that the manuscript is deserving of publication but only following the suggested modifications.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
no comment
The model formulation is okay. The work has many punctuation marks and errors, especially the equations. The equations are part of the statement.
Some terms are not defined in the work.
For instance, what is V_{NE} after (9)?
How do the authors get \pi_{NV} (0)?
What is the meaning of V_{NE}=0? How do V_{NE} solves \pi_{NV} (v)=\pi_{v} +c?
What is c?
Are the numbers (1) and (2) on Page 10 the same as the ones in the model formulation?
no comment
The manuscript addressed a complex mathematical model. Some minor adjustments are needed for the narrative parts and use of English with grammar and sentece formation.
The references seemed appropriate and relative.
The professional article structure was quite good, but long strings of symbols needed to be clearer. I suggest a list where many terms/symbols are used.
The authors clearly considered possibilities but did provide an argument, and included limitations.
While the mathematical model was adapted from earlier published authors, the statistical formal were appropriate. They took me time to verify - two whole days!
While I would not say that the investigation was "rigorous", it was sufficiently plausible and credible. It would take an expert to explain the formulae used to a less discerning reader.
The methods were reproducible, perhaps with a different interpretation in other circumstances.
The impact has yet to be noted. The theory model (after Nash's Equilibrium Theory) is provided.
The underlying data was satisfactory.
The conclusions were satisfactory considering the limitations of the research.
A well thought out research project which would add to the literature as an idea, built on previous work.
Innovative model with possibilities, but much has to be worked out with the delivery and distribution of vaccines, control points, supplies, and other logistics.
The Nash Equilibrium Theory is well established and can be applied in this case, but it needs an explanation for the reader.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.