Abundance and Seasonal Variations of Snail Intermediate Hosts of Schistosomiasis in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The study investigated the abundance and seasonal variations of schistosomiasis intermediate host snails and the relationship between schistosomiasis prevalence among humans and infected snail vectors in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria. This is an important aspect for the identification of potential schistosomiasis transmission sites to provide updated data for control intervention of this disease. The authors are encouraged to improve the quality of the manuscript using the guidelines below. Globally, the manuscript requires major revisions to meet publication standards.

Abstract

1. Key findings with respect to Behavioral Change Campaign (BCC) and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) are completely lacking.
2. The factor seasons, and relationship between the disease among humans and infected snail vectors are lacking in the presented findings.
3. The concluding point is not well captured.
4. Line 15: The word “Schistosomiasis” should be in lowercase.
5. Line 17: Delete the word “only”.
6. Line 21: Delete the sixth word “the”.
7. Line 26: Include the percentages of the snails found.
8. Line 32: Delete the third word “the”.
9. Key words: the authors should review this section with respect to the objectives and key aspects of the study.

 

Introduction

1. Lines 58-60: Schistosomiasis affects all sexes of different ages. This section should be reformulated to capture this idea.
2. Present the introduction into paragraphs carrying specific meanings.
3. The introduction largely described literature on the disease epidemiology; however key aspects of the study such as the relationship between the disease among humans and infected snail vectors have been vaguely introduced.
4. The objective of the study stated here is quite different from what was started in the Abstract.

Materials and methods

1. Figure 1: improve readability of the map.
2. Describe the method for ‘Selection of Sampling Sites and Collection of Snails’ using paragraph(s) rather bullet points.
3. Line 90: The word “Rice” should be in lowercase.
4. Line 119: There should be a space between the number and the unit, that is 15 –20 m. Likewise on line 133 (2 mm mesh size).
5. Line 122: Delete the comma after “et al.” and add a full stop at the end of the sentence.
6. Line 132: How were the snails determined dead?
7. Line 138: The time should be well written as 6:30 am not 6.30 am. Justify the choice of snail sampling between 6:30 am and 10:00 am. Mention the number of snail collectors.
8. Line 142: The sentence is not clear.
9. Lines 143-147: Summarize this section avoiding repetition.
10. Line 148: What about labelling the sample collection containers?
11. Lines 157-159: The word “Schistosoma” should be italicized. Correct “et al,” to “et al.”. Add a full stop at the end of the sentence.
12. Lines 164 and 168: The equation should be well written and consistent.
13. Lines 189-190: It should be 10 mL not 10MLs, likewise for 2 mL not 2MLs.
14. Line 191: What is the meaning of indirect sunlight?
15. Line 197: The time should be well written.
16. Line 198: Were the snails screened individually for cercariae emission?
17. Line 206: Replace the word “from” with “by”.

 

Results

1. Consider sending Figure1 (maps) as supplementary file. Lines 233, 235, and 237: In the titles of Figures 2-4, specify the maps to their respective localities. The water sampled sites are not clearly presented. The maps should be revised to standard. These maps (Figure 2-4) seem to be detailed projections of sections of Figure 5.
2. Lines 238-239: Figure 5 looks like a study area map and should be better placed in this section.
3. Line 241: Consider Plate 1 & 2 as figures.
4. As the study constitutes an epidemiological study, the authors should include percentages in presenting the findings. These percentages could be included in tables in parenthesis.
5. Line 245: Bulinus species belong to the family Planorbidae, so revise the families listed.
6. Line 246: The word “respectively” is not necessary.
7. Table 1: the number of months presented here are 12 while the authors earlier indicated having done the collection for 14 months (see lines 138 – 140).
8. Line 253: Figure 6 is not completely displayed (check the right hand section). The word “Snail” should be in lowercase. Review the English of the axes.
9. Line 254: The authors collected snails for 14 months, and it is not clear why they choose to distinguishably present snails for the period of July 2024 and June 2025. The phrase “Photographs of Snails” should be in lowercase.
10. Line 263: In Table 1, add the year to the last two months listed.
11. Lines 264-265: Add a vertical line to the y-axis.
12. Line 273: The word “Snail” should be in lowercase. In Table 2, the scientific names of the snails should be italicized (as presented) meanwhile the rest of the text should not be italicized. The scientific names of the snails can be abbreviated and full meaning presented as footnote.
13. Line 275: The word “Wet” should be in lowercase.
14. Line 277: The word “Seasons” should be in lowercase.
15. Line 280: The title of Table 3 does not completely capture its content. In the methodology section, it is mentioned that snails were collected whether dead or alive (line 131). It will be important to present the number of snails exposed for cercariae shedding in both the dry and wet seasons.
16. Line 287: the authors did not carry out any study regarding disease prevalence. It is important to justify the source(s) of the prevalence figures used here. In case this emanates from the present study, the actual and comprehensive methodology should be clearly detailed.
17. Line 289: In Figure 8, thescientific names of the snails in the legend should be italicized. This figure should be commented in details to enable understanding. The number of schistosomiasis intermediate host snails shedding cercariae as per locality should be checked.
18. Line 290: In the title of Figure 8, add the word “and” after the word “prevalence”.

 

Discussion

1. Line 315: Check and correct the spacing before the word “These”.
2. Line 320: Replace the symbol “&” with the word “and”. Delete the comma following the second author’s name in the citation.
3. Line 334: Delete the comma after the author’s name. Add a full stop after “et al”. The word “Snail” should be in lowercase.
4. Line 343: Delete the comma after the author’s name in the citation.
5. Add the limitations of the study at the end of the discussion section and add recommendations for future studies.

 

Conclusions

1. The conclusion is vague and does not reflect the key findings of the study.
2. Recommendations should be integrated into the conclusions.

Author Contributions

1. Line 359: This section should be presented.

 

References

1. - Review author citation in text and the references according to IJERPH the author’s guidelines.
2. Lines 462 and 463: Check the years in the references.
3. Lines 466-469: In the two references, include the dates in which the information was accessed.

General comments

1. Abbreviations (e.g. FCT) should for the first time should have their full meaning provided.
2. Avoid starting sentences with numbers (Abstract, e.g. line 25).
3. Review the English language, avoid unnecessary caps and harmonize the writing of names of villages/ communities.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should reviewed as indicated in the report.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1 comments – Round 1

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you sincerely for your insightful comments and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered each point raised and have revised our manuscript accordingly. Below is our point-by-point response.

Abstract

1. Reviewer’s comment: 1. Key findings with respect to Behavioral Change Campaign (BCC) and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) are completely lacking

Response: We thank Reviewer for his insight. The study was basically on snail intermediate host and did not include human component on Behavioral Change Campaign (BCC) and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH). We have therefore deleted our mention of this component.

2. Reviewer’s comment: 2 The factor seasons, and relationship between the disease among humans and infected snail vectors are lacking in the presented findings

Response: The factor seasons, and relationship between the disease among humans and infected snail vectors have been succinctly revised on line 47 – 52 and highlighted in red

3. Reviewer’s comment: 3 The concluding point is not well captured

Response: We have revised the concluding point to drive home the import of the study

4. Reviewer’s comment: 4 Line 15: The word “Schistosomiasis” should be in lowercase, Line 17: Delete the word “only”. Line 21: Delete the sixth word “the”, Line 26: Include the percentages of the snails found, Line 32: Delete the third word “the”.

Response: We are grateful for these valuable observations. Authors completely agree with these suggestions and we have applied the corrections accordingly

5. Reviewer’s comment: 5 Key words: the authors should review this section with respect to the objectives and key aspects of the study.

Response: The keywords have been revised

Introduction

1. Reviewer’s comment: Lines 58-60: Schistosomiasis affects all sexes of different ages. This section should be reformulated to capture this idea.
2. Response: This section has been reformulated to capture this idea. It is now on line 74 – 80 and highlighted in red
3. Reviewer’s comment: Present the introduction into paragraphs carrying specific meanings.

Response: The introduction has now been rearranged into paragraphs

1. Reviewer’s comment: The introduction largely described literature on the disease epidemiology; however key aspects of the study such as the relationship between the disease among humans and infected snail vectors have been vaguely introduced.

Response: The key aspects of the study such as the relationship between the disease among humans and infected snail vectors has been properly introduced on line 95 – 104 and highlighted in red font

1. Reviewer’s comment: The objective of the study stated here is quite different from what was started in the Abstract.

Response: The study objective has been aligned with what was started in the abstract on line 108 – 110.

Materials and methods

1. Reviewer’s comment: Figure 1: improve readability of the map.

Response: Authors are grateful for these valuable corrections. We have noted it and chaged the map to make it more readable

1. Reviewer’s comment: Describe the method for ‘Selection of Sampling Sites and Collection of Snails’ using paragraph(s) rather bullet points.
2. Response: The method for ‘Selection of Sampling Sites and Collection of Snails’ have been rearranged using paragraph(s) rather bullet points.
3. Reviewer’s comment: Line 90: The word “Rice” should be in lowercase. Line 119: There should be a space between the number and the unit, that is 15 –20 m. Likewise on line 133 (2 mm mesh size). Line 122: Delete the comma after “et al.” and add a full stop at the end of the sentence. Line 132: How were the snails determined dead? Line 138: The time should be well written as 6:30 am not 6.30 am. Justify the choice of snail sampling between 6:30 am and 10:00 am. Mention the number of snail collectors.

Response: We are grateful for these observations. We have edited all the observed errors.

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 142: The sentence is not clear. Lines 143-147: Summarize this section avoiding repetition. Line 148: What about labelling the sample collection containers? Lines 157-159: The word “Schistosoma” should be italicized. Correct “et al,” to “et al.”. Add a full stop at the end of the sentence.

Response: We have summarized the sentence and made it smarter and all other edit have been corrected

1. Reviewer’s comment: Lines 164 and 168: The equation should be well written and consistent.

Response: The equation has been well written and corrected

1. Reviewer’s comment: Lines 189-190: It should be 10 mL not 10MLs, likewise for 2 mL not 2MLs. Line 191: What is the meaning of indirect sunlight? Line 197: The time should be well written. Line 198: Were the snails screened individually for cercariae emission? Line 206: Replace the word “from” with “by”.
2. Response: All the edit has been effected

 

Results

1. Reviewer’s comment: Consider sending Figure1 (maps) as supplementary file. Lines 233, 235, and 237: In the titles of Figures 2-4, specify the maps to their respective localities. The water sampled sites are not clearly presented. The maps should be revised to standard. These maps (Figure 2-4) seem to be detailed projections of sections of Figure 5.

Lines 238-239: Figure 5 looks like a study area map and should be better placed in this section.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have moved figures 2 – 4 to supplementary file in a standard format specifying their respective localities. Figure 5 has equally been properly placed

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 241: Consider Plate 1 & 2 as figures.

Response: The plates have been changed to figures, now figures 3 and 4

1. Reviewer’s comment: As the study constitutes an epidemiological study, the authors should include percentages in presenting the findings. These percentages could be included in tables in parenthesis.

Response: We appreciate this observation. We have included percentages in table 1 and 2

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 245: Bulinus species belong to the family Planorbidae, so revise the families listed.

Line 246: The word “respectively” is not necessary.

Response: The families listed have been revised and edited as observed

1. Reviewer’s comment: Table 1: the number of months presented here are 12 while the authors earlier indicated having done the collection for 14 months (see lines 138 – 140).

Response: We erroneously stated that samples were collected over a period of 14 months on line 138 – 140. We have corrected it to 12 months

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 253: Figure 6 is not completely displayed (check the right hand section). The word “Snail” should be in lowercase. Review the English of the axes.

Response: The figure have been properly aligned and edited

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 254: The authors collected snails for 14 months, and it is not clear why they choose to distinguishably present snails for the period of July 2024 and June 2025. The phrase “Photographs of Snails” should be in lowercase.

Line 263: In Table 1, add the year to the last two months listed.

Lines 264-265: Add a vertical line to the y-axis.

Line 273: The word “Snail” should be in lowercase. In Table 2, the scientific names of the snails should be italicized (as presented) meanwhile the rest of the text should not be italicized. The scientific names of the snails can be abbreviated and full meaning presented as footnote.

Line 275: The word “Wet” should be in lowercase.

Line 277: The word “Seasons” should be in lowercase.

Response: All suggested edits have been corrected

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 280: The title of Table 3 does not completely capture its content. In the methodology section, it is mentioned that snails were collected whether dead or alive (line 131). It will be important to present the number of snails exposed for cercariae shedding in both the dry and wet seasons.

Line 287: the authors did not carry out any study regarding disease prevalence. It is important to justify the source(s) of the prevalence figures used here. In case this emanates from the present study, the actual and comprehensive methodology should be clearly detailed.

Response: Table 3 and figure 8 have been revised to highlight the percentages of snails collected in wet and dry season as well as those that shed cercaria. Since we did not carry out any study regarding disease prevalence, we have cited the reference documents from where the prevalence was obtained on line 338 and 339

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 289: In Figure 8, the scientific names of the snails in the legend should be italicized. This figure should be commented in details to enable understanding. The number of schistosomiasis intermediate host snails shedding cercariae as per locality should be checked.

Line 290: In the title of Figure 8, add the word “and” after the word “prevalence”.

Response: All suggested edits have been effected

 Discussion

Reviewer’s comment: Line 315: Check and correct the spacing before the word “These”.

Line 320: Replace the symbol “&” with the word “and”. Delete the comma following the second author’s name in the citation.

Line 334: Delete the comma after the author’s name. Add a full stop after “et al”. The word “Snail” should be in lowercase.

Line 343: Delete the comma after the author’s name in the citation.

Add the limitations of the study at the end of the discussion section and add recommendations for future studies.

Response: Author are grateful these attention to details, we have effected all the suggestions

Conclusions

Reviewer’s comment: The conclusion is vague and does not reflect the key findings of the study. Recommendations should be integrated into the conclusions.

             Response: Conclusion have been well captured and recommendation has been proffered

Author Contributions

             Reviewer’s comment: Line 359: This section should be presented.

             Response: This has been presented

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript by Anagbogu et al., “Abundance and Seasonal Variations of Snail Intermediate Hosts of Schistosomiasis in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria,” represents a significant contribution to the existing knowledge about snail intermediate hosts and their role in schistosomiasis transmission.

I do not have any specific concerns regarding this manuscript, which I find to be well written, well organized into clearly defined sections, and easy to read.

 The Introduction provides relevant background information on the subject, including appropriate references, and the Materials and Methods are clearly described and well designed.

In the Results section, a large amount of information is presented. It is recommended that the most relevant data in Tables 1 (line 279) and 2 (line 289) be highlighted to make the results easier to follow and interpret. In the Discussion section of the manuscript, the results obtained in the study are presented in a very clear and informative manner.

Congratulations on your work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you sincerely for your insightful comments and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the point raised and have revised our manuscript accordingly. Below is our response.

Reviewer’s comment: In the Results section, a large amount of information is presented. It is recommended that the most relevant data in Tables 1 (line 279) and 2 (line 289) be highlighted to make the results easier to follow and interpret. In the Discussion section of the manuscript, the results obtained in the study are presented in a very clear and informative manner.

Response: Authors are grateful for this suggestion. We completely agree with this observation, we have therefore highlighted the rows and column with the summary data

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

This manuscript addresses an important and understudied component of schistosomiasis transmission in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria. The large spatial coverage (six area councils), extended sampling period (14 months), and integration of malacological and seasonal data are notable strengths. The study has clear public health relevance, especially in the context of the WHO 2030 elimination targets. The manuscript could be publishable after careful revision.

Section-by-Section Detailed Review

 

Title (Lines 1–4)

Issue(s):

• Minor grammatical and formatting problems.

Specific comments:

• Line 2: “Snail Intermediate Host” → should be “Snail Intermediate Hosts” (plural).
• Line 3–4: “Abuja, Nigeria” → missing comma.

Suggested revision:

Abundance and Seasonal Variations of Snail Intermediate Hosts of Schistosomiasis in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria

Public Health Significance & Implications (Lines 15–29)

Issues:

• Statements are too generic and not explicitly linked to findings from this study.

Suggestions:

• Line 17–20: Add a specific reference to the detection of cercariae-shedding snails in FCT.
• Line 25–26: “will fast-track the elimination timeline”: overstated; should be “may support” or “can contribute to”.

Abstract (Lines 30–54)

Major issues:

1. Grammar and clarity
   • Line 32: “endemic area” → “endemic areas”
   • Line 46: “Bullinus” → misspelling; should be Bulinus (repeated multiple times throughout manuscript).
2. Statistical inconsistency
   • Lines 49–50: “relationship … were not statistically significant”: must indicate test used and the p-value.

Suggestions:

• Clearly distinguish descriptive findings from inferential conclusions.
• Avoid implying causality.

Introduction (Lines 57–98)

Issues:

1. Repetition
• Lines 58–79 repeat well-known background facts; could be condensed.
2. Terminology consistency
• Lines 68–69: “Biomphalaria and Bulinus”: consistent italics for genus names needed throughout.
3. Novelty claim
• Line 97–98: “first state-wide study”: should be toned down unless systematically verified.

Suggested revision: “To the best of our knowledge, this represents one of the most comprehensive malacological surveys conducted across the FCT.”

2.2.3 Snail Collection (Lines 134–175)

Issues:

1. Overly verbose
• Many bullet points repeat similar actions (hand-picking, scooping).
2. Sampling effort standardization
• Line 154–156: Scooping time ranges from 15–45 minutes; this introduces sampling bias.

Recommendation:

• Justify variable sampling time or standardize across sites.

2.2.4 Determination of Snail Abundance (Lines 176–185)

Major methodological issue:

• Shannon–Wiener Index is misapplied.
• The study reports abundance, but the Shannon index measures diversity, not abundance alone.

Correction needed:

• Clarify whether:
• Shannon index was used strictly for diversity, OR
• abundance was measured separately (counts per unit effort).

This is an important revision.

2.2.6 Screening for Schistosome Infection (Lines 198–230)

Issues:

• Line 221–222: “Human and animal cercariae were identified”: Problematic claim without molecular confirmation.

Suggestion:

• Replace with: “cercariae morphologically consistent with human-infective schistosomes.”

Results (Lines 243–306)

Figures and Tables (Throughout Results)

Major issues:

• Figures lack statistical annotations.
• Axis labels are inconsistent (Figures 6–7).
• Some captions are incomplete or grammatically incorrect (e.g., Figure 8, Line 306).

3.4 Seasonal Variation (Lines 290–299)

Issue:

• Percentages reported (Lines 291–293) are unclear in derivation.
• “More shedding in dry season” is reported, but no statistical test results are shown.

Required correction:

• Explicitly state:
• statistical test used,
• p-values,
• confidence intervals (if applicable).

3.5 Relationship Between Disease Endemicity and Snail Shedding (Lines 300–306)

Issue:

• Human prevalence data are referenced, but methods for obtaining these data are not described.

Suggestion:

• Clarify whether the prevalence data were:
• collected concurrently,
• obtained from published records,
• or from the Ministry of Health databases.

Discussion (Lines 307–364)

Issues:

1. Repetition of results
• Lines 329–344 repeat the Results section almost verbatim.
2. Causal language
• Avoid implying direct causation between snail abundance and human infection.
3. Misspellings
• “Bullinus” and “Biomphelaria” appear repeatedly.

Conclusions & Recommendations (Lines 365–374)

Issues:

• The conclusion is very brief relative to data volume.
• Recommendations lack prioritization.

Suggestion:

• Expand conclusions to explicitly summarize:
• key spatial findings,
• seasonal trends,
• policy implications.

References (Lines 387–486)

Issues:

• Inconsistent formatting.
• Some URLs are broken or improperly spaced.
• Duplicate WHO references with different formatting.

Recommendation:

• Reformat according to journal reference style and verify all links.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you sincerely for your insightful comments and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the point raised and have revised our manuscript accordingly. Below is our response.

Reviewer’s comment: Line 2: “Snail Intermediate Host” → should be “Snail Intermediate Hosts” (plural). Line 3–4: “Abuja, Nigeria” → missing comma.

Response: Authors noted this with appreciation. We have effected these edit.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 17–20: Add a specific reference to the detection of cercariae-shedding snails in FCT.

Line 25–26: “will fast-track the elimination timeline”: overstated; should be “may support” or “can contribute to”.

Response: We have revised the abstract and these corrections are no longer necessary

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 32: “endemic area” → “endemic areas”

 Line 46: “Bullinus” → misspelling; should be Bulinus (repeated multiple times throughout manuscript).

Response: Authors are grateful for these observations; we have corrected the errors throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer’s comment: Lines 49–50: “relationship … were not statistically significant”: must indicate test used and the p-value.

Response: This section has been revised and p-value no longer necessary

Reviewer’s comment:

Novelty claim: Line 97–98: “first state-wide study”: should be toned down unless systematically verified.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion, authors agree with this and have revised it now on line 110 - 112

 Reviewer’s comment: Many bullet points repeat similar actions (hand-picking, scooping). Line 154–156: Scooping time ranges from 15–45 minutes; this introduces sampling bias.

Response: The method for ‘Selection of Sampling Sites and Collection of Snails’ have been rearranged using paragraph(s) rather bullet points.

Reviewer’s comment: The study reports abundance, but the Shannon index measures diversity, not abundance alone. Clarify whether: Shannon index was used strictly for diversity, OR   abundance was measured separately (counts per unit effort).

Response: Authors are grateful for the reviewer’s perspective on this. Authors belief that the Shannon - Weiner diversity index formula is used to calculate the number of species and the abundance of each species that live in a particular location. Although the title of this study is abundance of certain species that serves as intermediate host for schistosomiasis using count per unit effort, diversity was equally calculated using the formular. We have provided more insight on lines 184 – 202.

Reviewer’s comment: Line 221–222: “Human and animal cercariae were identified”: Problematic claim without molecular confirmation

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have changed the sentence to “Cercariae morphologically consistent with human-infective schistosomes were identified based on their distinct morphological features” on lines 240 and 241

Authors have edited all tables and figures to correct observed errors

Conclusion and recommendation have been revised accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript in this revision. However, there remain several critical areas that require attention. I encourage the authors to address the points outlined below. Overall, the manuscript still requires substantial revisions to meet the journal's standards for publication.

Abstract

1. Review the Abstract and bring a concluding statement.
2. Key words: revise the key words considering including disease prevalence, cercaria shedding.

 

Introduction

1. ‘Snail vectors’ is a core key word for this study. However the authors have failed to present the importance in the current version of the introduction. This should be corrected accordingly.

Materials and methods

1. Line 115: do specify the names of the 6 Area Councils of the FCT. Also cite Figure 1 in the text prior presenting it.
2. Line 156: etc. means?
3. Determination of Snail Abundance and diversity: add a reference to the Shannon - Weiner diversity index formula.
4. Lines 204 - 214 : do arrange the author citations following a chronological order. This should be done throughout the document.
5. Is there any difference between Figure 1 and Figure 2? The authors should cross check and harmonize this.

 

Results

1. Table 1: what does the last row represent? Do ad the footnote to this table.
2. Figure 6 seems to be a redundant presentation of findings in Table 1, do cross check.
3. Figures 6 and 7 lack the Y-axis line.

Discussion

1. Lines 407 -408: review and reformulate the sentence.

Conclusions

1. Review the concluding statement emphasizing on the summary of the key findings from the objective(s) of the study.
2. Merge the section ‘Recommendation’ to similar point in the ‘Conclusion’.

 

References

1. Review author citation in text and the references according to IJERPH the author’s guidelines (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/instructions#references) .

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you sincerely once again for your comments and valuable suggestions towards enhancing the quality of this manuscript and standardizing it. We have carefully considered each point raised and have revised our manuscript accordingly. Below is our point-by-point response.

Abstract

1. Reviewer’s comment: Review the Abstract and bring a concluding statement.

Response: We have reviewed the abstract as suggested. The revision is on line 50-57 and highlighted in red

2. Reviewer’s comment: Key words: revise the key words considering including disease prevalence, cercaria shedding.

Response: Keywords have been revised as suggested and highlighted in red

 Introduction

1. Reviewer’s comment: ‘Snail vectors’ is a core key word for this study. However the authors have failed to present the importance in the current version of the introduction. This should be corrected accordingly.

Response: Authors are grateful for this insight. We have reviewed this section to highlight the importance of the snail vectors on line 69-76 and highlighted in red

Materials and methods

1. Reviewer’s comment: Line 115: do specify the names of the 6 Area Councils of the FCT. Also cite Figure 1 in the text prior presenting it.

Response: The names of the 6 Area Councils of the FCT have been specified citing figure 1on line 116 and 117

2. Reviewer’s comment: Line 156: etc. means?

Response: the etc has been deleted

3. Reviewer’s comment: Determination of Snail Abundance and diversity: add a reference to the Shannon - Weiner diversity index formula.

Response: The reference has been added on line 182

4. Reviewer’s comment: Lines 204 - 214 : do arrange the author citations following a chronological order. This should be done throughout the document.

Response: Authors have been arranged in chronological order throughout the manuscript

5. Reviewer’s comment: Is there any difference between Figure 1 and Figure 2? The authors should cross check and harmonize this.

Response: There is no difference between figure 1 and 2. We have therefore deleted the figure 2 and made reference to figure 1

 Results

1. Reviewer’s comment: Table 1: what does the last row represent? Do ad the footnote to this table.

Response: The column has been properly labelled

2. Reviewer’s comment: Figure 6 seems to be a redundant presentation of findings in Table 1, do cross check.

Response: Figure 6 has been deleted

3. Reviewer’s comment: Figures 6 and 7 lack the Y-axis line.

Response: figure 6 has been deleted and figure 7 is now figure 5. X and y axis has been inserted

Discussion

1. Reviewer’s comment: Lines 407 -408: review and reformulate the sentence.

Response: the sentence has been re-casted and now on line 412-415 and highlighted in red

Conclusions

1. Reviewer’s comment: Review the concluding statement emphasizing on the summary of the key findings from the objective(s) of the study.
2. Merge the section ‘Recommendation’ to similar point in the ‘Conclusion’.

Response: The concluding statement has been revised, merging recommendation with the conclusion

 References

1. Reviewer’s comment: Review author citation in text and the references according to IJERPH the author’s guidelines (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/instructions#references).

Response: references have been arranged according to IJERPH guidelines

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the reviewer comments and revising the manuscript accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you sincerely once again for your comments and valuable suggestions towards enhancing the quality of this manuscript 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript in this revision. However, there remain several critical areas that require attention. I encourage the authors to address the points outlined below. Overall, the manuscript requires minor revisions indicated below to meet the journal's standards for publication.

 

Results

1. Table 3: correct ‘Wet and Dry Seasons’ to lower cases for all letters
2. Figure 5: do add the Y-axis lines

Limitation of the Study

1. Do reformulate/ review them. They should be placed before the conclusions as the last section of the Discussion, without a subtitle.

Conclusions

1. Do state as in the Abstract the actual key finding(s) obtained prior moving to ‘Findings from  this  study  demonstrates  that  in  the  FCT,  Schistosoma  transmission remains  a  challenge’.

Author Contributions

Edit this section using the following format: Ifeoma N Anagbogu and X (if any) : Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Investigation, Analysis, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – original draft and Project administration

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you once again for your comments and valuable suggestions towards enhancing the quality of this manuscript and standardizing it. We have revised our manuscript accordingly. Below is our point-by-point response.

Results

1. Reviewer’s comment: Table 3: correct ‘Wet and Dry Seasons’ to lower cases for all letters

Response: We are grateful for this observation; we have changed the Wet and Dry Seasons to lower cases for all letters

1. Reviewer’s comment: Figure 5: do add the Y-axis lines

Response: We have ticked the axis box on the chart element

Limitation of the Study

1. Reviewer’s comment: Do reformulate/ review them. They should be placed before the conclusions as the last section of the Discussion, without a subtitle.

Response: The subtitle for study limitation has been removed, the sentence has been reformulated and placed before the conclusions as the last section of the Discussion and highlighted in red.

Conclusions

1. Reviewer’s comment: Do state as in the Abstract the actual key finding(s) obtained prior moving to ‘Findings from this study demonstrates that in the FCT, Schistosoma transmission remains a challenge’.   

2. Response: The conclusion has been recasted. Key findings from this study have been stated prior to ‘Findings from this study demonstrates that in the FCT, Schistosoma transmission remains a challenge’.

Author Contributions

Reviewer’s comment: Edit this section using the following format: Ifeoma N Anagbogu and X (if any) : Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Investigation, Analysis, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – original draft and Project administration

Response: The section has been edited in the suggested format.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf