Tackling AMR: A Call for a(n Even) More Integrated and Transdisciplinary Approach between Planetary Health and Earth Scientists
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting, intriguing, and out-of-the-box paper; the perusal pushes the reader to investigate new relationships, yet unexplored at least in one's own mind.
Some minor comments:
The huge "introduction" to the main points, that is, all before the case-study, is quite long and a bit redundant: I would suggest shortening and making more straightforward.
I would not categorize such an article as an "Original Article", but rather a "Narrative Review" or a "Perspective", as the case-study is used as a trigger and confirmation of a broader horizon to look at.
Very useful piece.
Here attached, the paper, in which I highlighted all the sections that look to me too long, not much scientific, and sometimes useless.
In addition, as already remarked, the format and the style are not suitable for an original article, but rather, if ever, for a "Perspective" or a "narrative review"; then narration (the storytelling) does not fit exactly into a scientific paper, except for the presentation of the Indian experience, which seems however, still quite far from the real life.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to peer reviewer 1:
We thank Reviewer 1 for their insight and comments. We appreciate that Reviewer 1 feels the introduction section and many other sections could be shortened or removed and have revised this where we think it is warranted. However, there are some sections where we feel that removing all the information Reviewer 1 has indicated would weaken the paper, and we give our reasons for this below. Primarily, we would remind the reviewer that we are taking a planetary health lens to the challenge, in which transdisciplinarity, complexity and systems thinking are paramount: narrowing the focus of the article would lose this. We would ask the reviewer to consider that the paper aims to highlight the value of, and need for, transdisciplinarity and that it is therefore important to return to this throughout the text.
Lines 52-61, original manuscript: We have reduced this section, but we disagree that all this section is superfluous. The aim of the paper is to highlight the current lack of attention being given to the links between climate change and antibiotic use due to the high burden of animal disease that is linked to climate change, and therefore highlighting the paucity of existing literature on this topic in the two premier planetary health journals is valid. We have reduced this section but have not removed all the text indicated by the reviewer. We do, however, leave the final decision to the editor.
Lines 79-86, original manuscript: We have reduced this section, but we disagree that all this section is entirely superfluous. The aim of the paper is to encourage more transdisciplinary thinking and we feel that by setting out our own experience, others will understand how we came to see these values and perhaps be inspired to think beyond their own disciplines themselves. The paragraph exemplifies the value of the ethnographic approach that led to consideration of the climate impact – ethnography was one of the disciplines that fed into and underpins our approach. Furthermore, deleting this paragraph would mean the sentence directly following it, which starts ‘These observations’ when ‘These observations’ have not been described, would make no sense. As above, we leave to the editor’s discretion, but we feel the remainder of this paragraph does have value and should remain intact.
Lines 96-109, original manuscript: The aim of the paper is to encourage transdisciplinary research and therefore it is important to state the value of such research, including at the strategic level between different agencies of the United Nations. Perhaps considering this paper more as the ‘Perspective’ or ‘Narrative review’, as the reviewer suggests, will help them to understand the value of these ‘calls to action’ on transdisciplinarity. However, we do appreciate the reviewers’ comments on the length of the introduction section and, with this in mind (and bearing in mind also the comments of Reviewer 2, who felt that the conclusion was too short) we have moved some of this section to the conclusion, where it is equally valid and better balances the introduction and the conclusion sections.
Lines 123-132, 138-146 on original manuscript: We feel that this section is important and argue for it to stay. The sections clearly set out why knowledge from one field can add to another. While we use earth science as an example, there are many more disciplines that can and should also be included. We have reduced some sections where we feel this does not lose the overall intention of the paper but have left others unamended. As above, we leave to the editor’s discretion, but we feel these sections do have value and should not be removed entirely.
Lines 161-163, original manuscript: We would prefer not to remove this section. A key tenet of planetary health is its desire to influence policy and bring about societal change. Making clear how this can be done is important to the project. As above, we leave to the editor’s discretion, but we feel this paragraph does have value and should remain intact.
Lines 167-176 on original manuscript: We have reduced this section where we can but do feel that some of it is need to clearly set out why transdisciplinary research is important. We have reduced some sections where we feel this does not lose the overall intention of the paper but have left others unamended. As above, we leave to the editor’s discretion, but we feel this paragraph does have value and should not be removed entirely.
Lines 188-192, 196-198 on original manuscript: We have reduced this section but do feel that showing the value to the human, as well as animal health field, with examples is important. As above, we leave to the editor’s discretion, but we feel this paragraph does have value and should not be removed entirely.
Lines 213-235 on original manuscript: We feel it would be a shame to lose this section. While it can be seen as an overly-detailed explanation of the research we carried out (and to which we refer readers on by signposting to the full research article in another journal), we do think it will be of interest and helps to give a clear example of how our approach can work. We have, however, moved this to the end of the section, and if the editor feels that the section adds nothing to the paper overall, we will accept its removal.
Lines 240-245, 277-297 original manuscript: We do feel that these sections add value to the paper and should be allowed to remain. We also note that reviewer 2 asked for more information on our methodology to be included – which is in contradiction to asking for what we have included to be removed. The section explains why our research provide an ideal case study for the transdisciplinarity we call for. As above, we leave to the editor’s discretion, but we feel these paragraphs do have value and should remain intact.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think, this is an interesting manuscript. I have serious doubts about the type of manuscript: is it a research paper or a review? Please resolve this issue as it says "article" in the description. Nevertheless, here are some remarks:
1. An unclear aim of the study, please specify what you are talking about. Are you presenting your own research or discussing someone else's?.
2. Methodology - if this is a research article, please clearly describe the methodology.
3. All figures should be in 300 dpi, because they are not high-quality images at the moment - please change it. Particularly low and for the necessary changes are: Fig. 1, Fig. 2b, C, D
4. Complete the chapter "Introduction" with information on the risks from the presence of drug-resistant isolates of bacteria/E. coli in the environment. Please, quote the relevant literature, e.g. :
Wolny-Koładka, K.; Zdaniewicz, M. Antibiotic Resistance of Escherichia coli Isolated from Processing of Brewery Waste with the Addition of Bulking Agents. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810174
5. The "Conclusions" section should be Extensive and more specific. The most important conclusions from the research should be placed there.
Author Response
Response to peer reviewer 2:
We thank the reviewer for their insight and comments.
1.The case study is based on our own research. We have clarified (we believe) the text to reflect this where necessary.
We have amended the text to clarify that the aim of the paper is to highlight the value in predicting disease risk linked to climate conditions through the integration of Earth Science into planetary health research (and by increased transdisciplinarity in general). We have made changes in the abstract and the main body of the article which we believe now clarifies this position.
- Methodology: We agree with the reviewer that this is not a typical research article; with this in mind the need to describe the methodology in detail is reduced, however, we have added in an additional reference to where the full methodology of the original study can be found in a more scientific research paper (https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabionehealth.2022.0009 - published in CABI OneHealth).
- Figures: high-res documents of all the figures have been provided to the editors
- We have added information on the risks from antibiotic resistant bacteria in the environment into the introduction section and thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.
- We have added further information into the conclusion to make it more extensive and have also included references on to where the full results of the study can be found. We would stress that we feel the conclusion should focus on the conclusions relating to the value of transdisciplinarity, not the conclusions of the research project. Nonetheless, we have included information on the findings and conclusions of the research project itself, which we agree strengthens this section.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The corrections have been made, the article is accepted.
