The Need to Prioritize Prevention of Viral Spillover in the Anthropopandemicene: A Message to Global Health Researchers and Policymakers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

SUMMARY

The paper needs revision in terms of both content and form, to provide an evidence-informed viewpoint for advocacy with researchers and policy-makers.

CONTENT

·         The suggested five priority areas may be linked to the relevant existing global frameworks. The Authors refer to the IPBES report, but what about global and binding frameworks including the International Health Regulations (2005) and the Paris Agreement (2015)? If the viewpoint is intended for researchers and policy makers, the Authors may first of all refer to the existing global and legally binding frameworks and then, possibly, add to them through their original viewpoint. This should be clear across the manuscript, from the Introduction through the Conclusions.

·         Section 5 “Investment in Community-Based Infectious Diseases Research” needs to provide at least a definition of what is intended by community-based infectious disease research. What does the term “community-based” means in practice? Also, the section’s portion from line 186 through 196 is out of place: first of all, why singling out Nigeria here, when the issues covered in the manuscript are global and, anyway, the manuscript does not cover anything about Nigeria specifically? Furthermore, the criticism about “helicopter research” does not fit here, or at least the link is unknown given the absence of definition of “community-based infectious disease research”.

·         Section 6 “Strengthening Community Healthcare Systems in Precarious Ecosystems and 197 Infectious Diseases Hotspot” needs to provide the elements of such health system strengthening i.e., what and, possibly, how? Also, it needs to provide an official reference for “health system building blocks” (lines 209-210). Also, the Authors state this is critical for LMICs and specifically the global south. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has clearly showed this applies to all types of countries everywhere, noting COVID-19 originated in China and continues to have unprecedented impact in all types of countries everywhere. Finally, Ebola (or better Ebola Virus Disease) is raised in this section but nowhere else in the manuscript, nor in reference to other epidemic/pandemic-prone diseases of

FORM

Overall syntax, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation need to be improved, please ensure proofreading and editing as needed.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Abstract

·         The Abstract mostly captures introductory and background remarks, with only little coverage on the viewpoint’s key content. The Authors may reduce introductory and background remarks, and expand on the actual viewpoint including the suggested five priority areas.  

·         Line 29: “(…) probably have their origin from wildlife (…)” is not meaningful in a scientific publication. The Authors may research the topic better to inform the viewpoint with the most accurate available evidence and provide the readers with more scientific content.

·         Line 33: The word “interestingly” is out of place here. It is not up to the Authors to define as interesting their own concept.

Introduction section

·         Line 47: The terms outbreak and pandemic are used incorrectly. The Authors may correct.

·         Line 48: No need to count the 106 pages of the cited report.

·         Line 59: “Interestingly, the recent COVID-19 pandemic may probably have its origin from (…)”: The words “interestingly” are out of place. The Authors may, respectively, improve vocabulary and research the topic better to inform the viewpoint with the most accurate available evidence and provide the readers with more scientific content.

Biosecurity Improvement in Livestock Farms section

·         Lines 86-89: The acronym “HAPI” does not match with the spelt-out term. Also, “coronavirus” is a viral subfamily and “COVID-19” is a disease, while previously listed are diseases. Also, “outbreak” is not correct for all the listed issues. Finally, the list is forgetting Ebola Virus Disease, which is an important epidemic/pandemic-prone disease of zoonotic etiology, specifically discussed in Section 6 on community health system strengthening but somehow omitted in other cross-cutting considerations. The Authors may correct.  

·         Line 104: this statement fits better in the Introduction section.

Conservation of Biodiversity by Placing a Halt on Deforestation section

·         Lines 147-148: The statement is imprecise: novel pathogens may originate through spillover, which affects pre-existing (not novel) pathogens. The Authors may reformulate.

·         Line 151: The direct citation is not consistent with the rest of the manuscript, with numbered citations in the Reference list.

Strengthening Community Healthcare Systems in Precarious Ecosystems section

·         Lines 221-227 go beyond Community Health System Strengthening, and would fit better in cross-cutting/overall considerations.

Conclusion

·         The Authors refer to IPBES as if it was the key overarching reference in the field, but what about global and binding frameworks including the International Health Regulations (2005) and the Paris Agreement (2015)? If the viewpoint is intended for researchers and policy makers, the Authors should, first of all, cite to the key overarching reference in the field and other existing global and legally binding frameworks. This should be clear across the manuscript, from the Introduction through the Conclusions.

·         The Conclusion section needs to be reformulated. First of all, the viewpoint does not provide an actual conclusion based on previously elaborated arguments. Also, lines 236-241 are not clear, do not add value as a conclusion and take the reader backward to the rationale of the viewpoint, rather than forward with a future perspective based on the viewpoint. The Authors may reformulate.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggested five priority areas may be linked to the relevant existing global frameworks. The Authors refer to the IPBES report, but what about global and binding frameworks including the International Health Regulations (2005) and the Paris Agreement (2015)? If the viewpoint is intended for researchers and policy makers, the Authors may first of all refer to the existing global and legally binding frameworks and then, possibly, add to them through their original viewpoint. This should be clear across the manuscript, from the Introduction through the Conclusions.

Section 5 “Investment in Community-Based Infectious Diseases Research” needs to provide at least a definition of what is intended by community-based infectious disease research. What does the term “community-based” means in practice? Also, the section’s portion from line 186 through 196 is out of place: first of all, why singling out Nigeria here, when the issues covered in the manuscript are global and, anyway, the manuscript does not cover anything about Nigeria specifically? Furthermore, the criticism about “helicopter research” does not fit here, or at least the link is unknown given the absence of definition of “community-based infectious disease research”.

Section 6 “Strengthening Community Healthcare Systems in Precarious Ecosystems and 197 Infectious Diseases Hotspot” needs to provide the elements of such health system strengthening i.e., what and, possibly, how? Also, it needs to provide an official reference for “health system building blocks” (lines 209-210). Also, the Authors state this is critical for LMICs and specifically the global south. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has clearly showed this applies to all types of countries everywhere, noting COVID-19 originated in China and continues to have unprecedented impact in all types of countries everywhere. Finally, Ebola (or better Ebola Virus Disease) is raised in this section but nowhere else in the manuscript, nor in reference to other epidemic/pandemic-prone diseases of

 

 

Dear Distinguished Reviewers,

Thank you for taking your time to review our manuscript, your scholarly insight is well appreciated. We have improved the vocabulary usage and this is how we have responded to the point-to-point comments made by you towards improving the quality of our manuscript:

Response:

In the revised manuscript, we have addressed points regarding other global and binding frameworks in line 43 and it appeared from the introduction to conclusion as suggested. A definition of community-based infectious disease research was provided in line 241-246. Furthermore, the criticism about “helicopter research” has been elucidated in line 268-271. Also, section 6 has been addressed appropriately in line 287-302.

 

Specific comments are listed below:

Abstract

Comment:

The Abstract mostly captures introductory and background remarks, with only little coverage on the viewpoint’s key content. The Authors may reduce introductory and background remarks, and expand on the actual viewpoint including the suggested five priority areas. 

Response:

In the revised manuscript, we have revised the introductory and background remarks, and expanded the actual viewpoint including the suggested five priority areas. 

Comment:

Line 29: “(…) probably have their origin from wildlife (…)” is not meaningful in a scientific publication. The Authors may research the topic better to inform the viewpoint with the most accurate available evidence and provide the readers with more scientific content.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 29)

Comment:

Line 33: The word “interestingly” is out of place here. It is not up to the Authors to define as interesting their own concept.

Response: The word “interestingly” has been removed and replaced with “moreover”. (Line 34)

 

Introduction section

Comment:

Line 47: The terms outbreak and pandemic are used incorrectly. The Authors may correct.

Response:

This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 53)

Comment:

Line 48: No need to count the 106 pages of the cited report.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 54)

Comment:

Line 59: “Interestingly, the recent COVID-19 pandemic may probably have its origin from (…)”: The words “interestingly” are out of place. The Authors may, respectively, improve vocabulary and research the topic better to inform the viewpoint with the most accurate available evidence and provide the readers with more scientific content.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 67-84)

Biosecurity Improvement in Livestock Farms section

Comment:

Lines 86-89: The acronym “HAPI” does not match with the spelt-out term. Also, “coronavirus” is a viral subfamily and “COVID-19” is a disease, while previously listed are diseases. Also, “outbreak” is not correct for all the listed issues. Finally, the list is forgetting Ebola Virus Disease, which is an important epidemic/pandemic-prone disease of zoonotic etiology, specifically discussed in Section 6 on community health system strengthening but somehow omitted in other cross-cutting considerations. The Authors may correct. 

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 116-117 and line 220-223)

 

Comment:

Line 104: this statement fits better in the Introduction section.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

 

Conservation of Biodiversity by Placing a Halt on Deforestation section

Comment:

Lines 147-148: The statement is imprecise: novel pathogens may originate through spillover, which affects pre-existing (not novel) pathogens. The Authors may reformulate.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 215-216)

 

Comment:

Line 151: The direct citation is not consistent with the rest of the manuscript, with numbered citations in the Reference list.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 219)

Strengthening Community Healthcare Systems in Precarious Ecosystems section

Comment:

Lines 221-227 go beyond Community Health System Strengthening, and would fit better in cross-cutting/overall considerations.

Response: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript. This is now in the overall consideration, specifically (Line 313-326)

Conclusion

Comments:

The Authors refer to IPBES as if it was the key overarching reference in the field, but what about global and binding frameworks including the International Health Regulations (2005) and the Paris Agreement (2015)? If the viewpoint is intended for researchers and policy makers, the Authors should, first of all, cite to the key overarching reference in the field and other existing global and legally binding frameworks. This should be clear across the manuscript, from the Introduction through the Conclusions.

 

The Conclusion section needs to be reformulated. First of all, the viewpoint does not provide an actual conclusion based on previously elaborated arguments. Also, lines 236-241 are not clear, do not add value as a conclusion and take the reader backward to the rationale of the viewpoint, rather than forward with a future perspective based on the viewpoint. The Authors may reformulate.

 

Response: All these have been addressed in the revised manuscript. (Line 313-328)

 

Overall Remark:

On behalf of all authors, we hope that you are satisfied with our revisions.

Kind Regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper studies the need to prioritize prevention of viral spillover in the snthropopandemicene and outlines five priority areas for global health researchers and policymakers towards minimizing the risk of future pandemics of zoonotic origin in the anthropopandemicene.  The topic maybe interesting, but the depth is not enough.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Comments:

This paper studies the need to prioritize prevention of viral spillover in the anthropopandemicene and outlines five priority areas for global health researchers and policy makers towards minimizing the risk of future pandemics of zoonotic origin in anthropopandemicene. The topic maybe interesting but the depth is not enough.

Response:

All suggestions and corrections have been addressed. The depth of the paper study has also been increased to suit the topic.

Overall Remark:

On behalf of all authors, we hope that you are satisfied with our revisions.

Please see the attachment below.

Kind Regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

SUMMARY

The authors have further developed their viewpoint, which is now clearer but still needs revision in terms of both content and form, to provide an evidence-informed viewpoint for advocacy with researchers and policy-makers.

CONTENT

·         The Authors now raise “global and binding frameworks” as I had suggested but they do so by referring to “IPBES, IHR, CITES and OIE”. However, only the IHR and CITES are binding frameworks, not the others. Besides, what about the Paris Agreement (2015)?

·         Section 5 “Investment in Community-Based Infectious Diseases Research” now provides a definition that incorrectly and misleadingly refers to an article that is generic about “community-based research”, not at all specific about “infectious diseases”.

·         Section 5 “Investment in Community-Based Infectious Diseases Research” and Section 6 “Strengthening Community Healthcare Systems in Precarious Ecosystems and Infectious Diseases Hotspot” incorrectly and misleadingly argues about infectious diseases in LMICs especially in Africa, while many epidemics of zoonotic etiology raised in this viewpoint did not originate in LMICs nor in Africa.

 FORM

Overall syntax, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation still need to be improved, please ensure proofreading and editing as needed.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

·         Lines 62-64 lists a mix of pathogens and diseases. For consistency, the authors may list only pathogens or the diseases.

·         Lines 67-78 are unclear. The Authors list several research articles on the topic, contracting the opening statement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time in reviewing our manuscript, your insightful comments and suggestions have greatly improved the tone and quality of our manuscript.

Based on the comments raised in revision 2, we have worked on the overall content of our manuscript both grammatically and scientifically, and we also discussed the Paris Agreement (i.e. the legally binding framework) as suggested. We addressed the comments point-by-point (highlighted in yellow) as explained below:

Comments:

The Authors now raise “global and binding frameworks” as I had suggested but they do so by referring to “IPBES, IHR, CITES, and OIE”. However, only the IHR and CITES are binding frameworks, not the others. Besides, what about the Paris Agreement (2015)?

     

Response:

From the introduction to the conclusion, we have clarified the differences between global and binding frameworks such as IHR, CITES, and Paris Agreement and intergovernmental organizations like IPBES and OIE.

In lines 230-246, we have discussed the Paris Agreement treaty and its relationship with deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change. Thanks for your insightful comments.

Comments:

Section 5 “Investment in Community-Based Infectious Diseases Research” now provides a definition that incorrectly and misleadingly refers to an article that is generic about “community-based research”, not at all specific about “infectious diseases”.

Response:

We have reworded this section to: “investing in community-based research for infectious diseases control”. By doing this, we have been able to link this definition to infectious diseases and this has been highlighted from lines 256 – 266. We also addressed this throughout our manuscript from abstract to conclusion. We sincerely appreciate your kind scholarly suggestion.

Comments:

Section 5 “Investment in Community-Based Infectious Diseases Research” and Section 6 “Strengthening Community Healthcare Systems in Precarious Ecosystems and Infectious Diseases Hotspot” incorrectly and misleadingly argues about infectious diseases in LMICs especially in Africa, while many epidemics of zoonotic etiology raised in this viewpoint did not originate in LMICs nor in Africa.

Response:

In section 5, we revised our manuscript and addressed this part. Specifically, we have highlighted the changes made in this section in lines 278 – 287. Consequently, we revised section 6 of our manuscript and made the necessary correction in line with your comment. The major revision can be seen in lines 307 – 309 and 319 – 322 respectively. We appreciate your comment as this will strengthen the quality of our manuscript.

FORM

 

Comment:

Overall syntax, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation still need to be improved, please ensure proofreading and editing as needed.

Response:

All these have been improved to the best of our knowledge. All thanks to you.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Comments

Lines 62-64 lists a mix of pathogens and diseases. For consistency, the authors may list only pathogens or the diseases.

Response:

We have revised lines 62 – 64 as suggested.

Comment:

Lines 67-78 are unclear. The Authors list several research articles on the topic, contracting the opening statement.

Response:

Lines 67 – 78 have been revised by deleting the information which is not relevant to the opening statement in this section. Line 67 – 71 specifically addressed this and we hope that you are satisfied with how we have revised this part.

We hope that you are satisfied with our revision.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version the authors have provided has been improved. The paper outlines five priority areas for global health researchers and policymakers. Some suggestions: The content of the paper needs to be further organized, the views need to be further refined. 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The revised version the authors have provided has been improved. The paper outlines five priority areas for global health researchers and policymakers. Some suggestions: The content of the paper needs to be further organized, and the views need to be further refined. 

 

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time in reviewing our manuscript, your insightful comments and suggestions have greatly improved the tone and quality of our manuscript.

Based on your comments and suggestions in revision 2, we have worked on the overall content of our manuscript both grammatically and scientifically. Also, we have organized and finally refined the views of the paper.

We hope you are satisfied with our revision.

Sincerely,

Authors