Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Forest Inventories in Private and Protected Areas of Paraguay
Previous Article in Journal
A Medical Equipment Lifecycle Framework to Improve Healthcare Policy and Sustainability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Global Environmental Health Impacts of Rare Earth Metals: Insights for Research and Policy Making in Africa
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

The Reemergence of Monkeypox in Nigeria

Challenges 2023, 14(2), 22; https://doi.org/10.3390/challe14020022
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Challenges 2023, 14(2), 22; https://doi.org/10.3390/challe14020022
Submission received: 12 March 2023 / Revised: 18 April 2023 / Accepted: 19 April 2023 / Published: 20 April 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reported the occurrence, distribution,  endemicity and possible solutions of monkeypox in Nigeria. This is useful for the study of monkeypox in Nigeria.  I have a few observations indicated below:

1.       The second part 2. Methodology is not necessary in this review.

2.        The monkeypox virus (MPXV) genome morphology is also important. The classification of monkeypox and which clade of MPXV in Nigeria belongs to should indicate in the review.

3.       Line 28, “Poxviridaefamily” should be “Poxviridae family”.

4.       Page 2 line 45, according to WHO website, more than 10 African countries were reported the MPXV cases.

5.       Figure 1 need a high-resolution figure.

6.       The legend font size in figure 2 and 4 are inconsistent.

7.       The legend of vertical coordinate in figure 3 is missing.

8.       The format of references is inconsistent.

 

Author Response

The authors reported the occurrence, distribution,  endemicity and possible solutions of monkeypox in Nigeria. This is useful for the study of monkeypox in Nigeria.  I have a few observations indicated below:

  1. The second part “ Methodology” is not necessary in this review.

RESPONSE: The Methodology session was added to follow the general guildline for review

 

 

  1.  The monkeypox virus (MPXV) genome morphology is also important. The classification of monkeypox and which clade of MPXV in Nigeria belongs to should indicate in the review.

RESPONSE: This has been updated in Line 48 through Line 45

 

 

  1. Line 28, “Poxviridaefamily” should be “Poxviridae family”.

RESPONSE: This has been corrected

 

 

  1. Page 2 line 45, according to WHO website, more than 10 African countries were reported the MPXV cases.

RESPONSE: We outlined the African countries with the highest number of cases 

 

 

  1. Figure 1 need a high-resolution figure.

RESPONSE: This is been adjusted accordingly

 

 

  1. The legend font size in figure 2 and 4 are inconsistent.

RESPONSE: This is been adjusted accordingly

 

 

  1. The legend of vertical coordinate in figure 3 is missing.

RESPONSE: This is been added accordingly

 

 

  1. The format of references is inconsistent.

RESPONSE: This is been adjusted accordingly

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for the Authors.

The topic is interesting and current, as it clearly highlights the importance of a coordinated approach to addressing the monkeypox resurgence in Nigeria. However, it could benefit from more specific details on what actions would be taken under the One Health approach to address the issue. For example, the paper could provide more detail on how coordination between human health, veterinary doctors, and environmental health professionals would occur, and what specific measures would be taken to identify animal reservoirs and transmission pathways. Adding more detail on these topics would enhance more clarity.

The introduction lacks global epidemiology perspective of monkeypox reports and current trends.

Line 26 to 27: “a deadly virus militating against human health” what does this mean? Kindly rephrase.

Line 86: The section on “Occurrence of Human monkeypox in Nigeria” could benefit from more detail on the specific measures taken by the NCDC and the outcomes of these measures. Additionally, while the section mentions the possibility of other ecological niches where the virus can expand, it does not provide any specific information on what these niches might be or how they might contribute to the spread of the virus.

Line 164: The total number of confirmed cases recorded in 32 states and FCT was provided. However, the number of cases recorded for each of the states can be provided as well.

In the introduction, the paper didn’t provide the general overview of current global epidemiology report of monkey pox. Since this paper is deemed a mini review, it should provide brief global report before giving information on monkeypox situational report in Nigeria.

The recommendation provided needs to specific to be relatable to the context of Nigeria setting. Implementation of measures suggested will fit well for developed countries as they advanced.

The author mentioned in the abstract that the articles cover important information on the epidemiology of monkeypox. However, sufficient information on the epidemiology such as the occurrence, mortality and morbidity, transmission, host and reservoir are not fully described. In sum, the distribution and determinant of monkeypox outbreak is not fully discussed. 

 Additionally, even though the paper is a mini-review, the element of review is lacking as the article looks more like overview of monkeypox in Nigeria. The paper fits in as a perspective as no literature was reviewed in the report. 

Recent advancement on monkeypox is expected to be provided by the author to make the manuscript more relevant. 

Finally, the manuscript is just like an official report with very little analyses. There is no mention of the disease being a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and the new name for the disease is not mentioned. Consequently, the epidemiological importance of large number of cases in men having sex with men is expected to be discussed. The information provided is already in the public domain and nothing new has been added or analyzed. 

The authors would do justice to the manuscript by addressing the comment above. As such, the paper should be revised based on the recommendations provided.

The conclusion part should be discussed separately under another outline.

What are the individual contributions of the author?

Author Response

  1. The topic is interesting and current, as it clearly highlights the importance of a coordinated approach to addressing the monkeypox resurgence in Nigeria. However, it could benefit from more specific details on what actions would be taken under the One Health approach to address the issue. For example, the paper could provide more detail on how coordination between human health, veterinary doctors, and environmental health professionals would occur, and what specific measures would be taken to identify animal reservoirs and transmission pathways. Adding more detail on these topics would enhance more clarity.

RESPONSE: We have addressed this comment and have included how One Health Approach could be a sustainable solution to tackle the resurgence in Nigeria. Can be found between Line 209 and 219

 

  1. The introduction lacks global epidemiology perspective of monkeypox reports and current trends.

RESPONSE: The communication is targeted at giving the epidemiology of monkeypox in Nigeria as there already exist literature addressing the global epidemiology of the Virus

 

 

  1. Line 26 to 27: “a deadly virus militating against human health” what does this mean? Kindly rephrase.

RESPONSE: The virus just as other disease causing organism is the ability to cause an adverse effect to Human health. The statement has been rephrased.

 

  1. Line 86: The section on “Occurrence of Human monkeypox in Nigeria” could benefit from more detail on the specific measures taken by the NCDC and the outcomes of these measures. Additionally, while the section mentions the possibility of other ecological niches where the virus can expand, it does not provide any specific information on what these niches might be or how they might contribute to the spread of the virus.

RESPONSE: The specific measures taken by the NCDC are outlined in Line 104 through line 117.

“This shows the existence of another ecological niché in humans where the expansion of the virus can occur aside from its natural reservoir”. This statement buttress the fact that there could exist another Niche in Humans. I.e Human reservoir.

 

 

 

  1. Line 164: The total number of confirmed cases recorded in 32 states and FCT was provided. However, the number of cases recorded for each of the states can be provided as well.

RESPONSE: This has been explained in Figure 3.

 

 

  1. In the introduction, the paper didn’t provide the general overview of current global epidemiology report of monkey pox. Since this paper is deemed a mini review, it should provide brief global report before giving information on monkeypox situational report in Nigeria.

RESPONSE: The paper is to be published as a communication of the situation of the virus in Nigeria. However, we have a briefly discussed the global state of the virus

 

 

  1. The recommendation provided needs to specific to be relatable to the context of Nigeria setting. Implementation of measures suggested will fit well for developed countries as they advanced.

RESPONSE: Line 219 through Line 230 shows a recommendation that could be established in any developing country such as Nigeria

 

  1. The author mentioned in the abstract that the articles cover important information on the epidemiology of Monkeypox. However, sufficient information on the epidemiology such as the occurrence, mortality and morbidity, transmission, host and reservoir are not fully described. In sum, the distribution and determinant of Monkeypox outbreak is not fully discussed. 

RESPONSE: The occurrence, mortality, and Morbidity of the monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria has been discussed  

 

 

  1. Additionally, even though the paper is a mini-review, the element of review is lacking as the article looks more like overview of Monkeypoxin Nigeria. The paper fits in as a perspective as no literature was reviewed in the report. 

RESPONSE: The paper is to be published as a communication. Although, we were able to review articles published on the situational reports in Nigeria exclusively

 

 

  1. Recent advancement on Monkeypox is expected to be provided by the author to make the manuscript more relevant.

RESPONSE: There is currently not such advancement in the Nigeria health sector. The progress by the Nigeria Health  has also been highlighted

 

 

  1. Finally, the manuscript is just like an official report with very little analyses. There is no mention of the disease being a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and the new name for the disease is not mentioned. Consequently, the epidemiological importance of large number of cases in men having sex with men is expected to be discussed. The information provided is already in the public domain and nothing new has been added or analyzed. 

RESPONSE: The information provided in this communication is meant to show that there is a gap in the advancement against Monkeypox in Nigeria. We hope that by the publication of these information, scientists might the existing gap especially in the south eastern Nigeria

 

 

  1. The authors would do justice to the manuscript by addressing the comment above. As such, the paper should be revised based on the recommendations provided.

RESPONSE:

 Thank you for your recommendations as we believe they make the communication better. We have addressed the recommendations as stipulated

 

 

 

  1. The conclusion part should be discussed separately under another outline.

RESPONSE: This is has been done.

 

 

 

  1. What are the individual contributions of the author?

RESPONSE:

Author contributions


NE and AO conceptualized the present paper, whilst all authors were involved in data curation, formal analysis, and preparation of the initial draft of the manuscript.


Investigations and Methodology was led by NE and AT. Project administration was done by NE. Resources and software were led by AT and OT.

 

Supervision was done by NE and AO.

 

NE was responsible for review and editing of the final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the paper for publication.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making significant improvement to the topic.

I am generally satisfied with the way you responded to the remarks and suggestions. However, the new name "Mpox" for the disease is not mentioned. This should reflect in the introductory section of the manuscript. 

 

 

 

Author Response

I am generally satisfied with the way you responded to the remarks and suggestions. However, the new name "Mpox" for the disease is not mentioned. This should reflect in the introductory section of the manuscript. 

Response: Thank you for your intellectual contributions. The New name has been  reflected in the introductory session

Back to TopTop