Review Reports - The Highly Interrelated Morbidity Respiratory Viruses Cause Among Humans and Animals in Mongolia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent review on the subject of viral zoonosis and human transmission in Mongolia which also has broad relevance world wide.

The idea of One Health is an important one to get across.

the paper might benefit from grammar check.

the title reads a little awkwardly how about

The highly interlated morbidity of respiratory viruses among …..

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above

Author Response

This is an excellent review on the subject of viral zoonosis and human transmission in Mongolia which also has broad relevance worldwide. The idea of One Health is an important one to get across. The paper might benefit from a grammar check. The title reads a little awkwardly. How about: ‘The highly interrelated morbidity of respiratory viruses among…..

- We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work and for acknowledging the global relevance of the topic. We appreciate the emphasis on One Health and agree that it is a critical concept for understanding the interactions between human, animal, and environmental health.

We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, and overall readability.

We have revised the title to read “The Highly Interrelated Morbidity of Respiratory Viruses among Humans and Animals in Mongolia”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The authors identify several country-specific risk factors for elevated risk respiratory virus morbidity amongst people and livestock in Mongolia. Their aim was to examine about respiratory virus morbidity in Mongolia associated with six respiratory virus families: Orthomyxoviridae, Coronaviridae, Pneumoviridae, Adenoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, and Picornaviridae. To do so, they summarised published reports of these viruses affecting both humans and livestock, focussing on peer-reviewed and summary reports in English. Their review, they state, describes transmission and health impacts, and highlights areas requiring further research, as well as public human and veterinary health interventions.

General comments

The authors highlight factors that elevate the risk of zoonotic spillover in-country. In their introduction, the authors state that they selected the named six viral families based on their contribution to disease burden. It is not clear if this is global burden, or if they had prior knowledge of these being the principal sources of viral disease burden in Mongolia. In multi-site studies of high respiratory disease burden, while sites share most of the same pathogens, the attributable burden varies by site. They might wish to specify.

In the materials and methods section, their search strategy is specified, however no information is provided regarding the team members conducting the research and any additional information regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria and how differences of opinion would be refereed. These details, if available, can be included.

In the results section, the authors the authors begin with background information on the viruses. This information would be more appropriate in the introduction and background, providing further justification for the inclusion of the selected families. These details can be kept brief in the background with references to direct readers to further information. The results should be kept focused on the findings of the search, the winnowing process and final selection of materials and what information these provided. The authors shift to this somewhat with subheadings such as impact, epidemiology and the like, which provides an organised presentation of their findings. Rather than giving a breakdown by pathogen, the paper might be streamlined by summarising the findings for each viral family under these broader subheadings, like epidemiology, seasonality etc, thereby providing readers with a more comprehensive appreciation of each of these features of disease burden and patterns. For example, under seasonality, which of these viruses are in co-circulation, and what is the pattern for the year. As presented, by the time one reads about one virus and goes to the next section, it is difficult to appreciate dynamics and burden from co-circulation, which is important. The current organisation is better suited for a book chapter than for a shorter paper, which should emphasise relevance over volume of information - ie why should the reader care, thus inviting the reader to conduct further study.

This has practical implications both for surveillance systems, the potential for pathogen interactions, as well as for clinical management and health systems design and policy. Such organisation is worth a re-organisation of the paper, and would better serve this team’s hard work. Further, each section can be further divided into human and animal disease burdens, as well as highlighting where these overlap, thus providing readers with an assessment of risk inter-species transmission and/or reassortants, particularly with influenza.

While it would shorten the amount of information on each pathogen in each of these sections, the authors can track some of these details into a supplemental section, mostly in tabular form. A shorter paper is more likely to be read entirely.

Many of the points discussed by the authors could then be placed in a discussion section, again summarising issues around co-circulation, inter-species transmission and opportunities for viral reassortment, as well as implications for surveillance and health systems and services. The authors might opt to break down the discussion by virus family, and this too would serve the body of information they have acquired as well as helping the reader to appreciate the relative importance of each viral family in this setting.

Their selection process for the included materials, however, should also be provided.

This is an impressive body of work, and reorganisation of the material might ensure wider receptivity and study.

Specific comments

It is not clear to this reviewer if the citation format is correct for this journal, but seems atypical.
Reference 1 in the introduction addresses respiratory disease burden in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas it is used to address global burden in general. As the statistic is correct for pre-pandemic disease, and need not be changed, the authors could also cite other global burden studies from studies unrelated to the pandemic to avoid confusion.

Author Response

Comment 1: Clarification is required regarding whether the selection of the six viral families was based on global disease burden or on Mongolia-specific data.

Thank you. We have revised the text accordingly.

Comment 2: The Materials and Methods section specifies a search strategy, but does not identify team members, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or how disagreements were resolved.

- Thank you. We agree that these methodological details are essential for transparency. In the revised Materials and Methods section, we now include:

Roles of team members involved in screening and data extraction.
Expanded inclusion and exclusion criteria.
A description of the two-stage screening process.
The procedure for resolving disagreements (discussion between reviewers and consultation with a third team member when needed).

Comment 3: Background material on virus families appears in the Results section; this belongs in the Introduction

- We thank the reviewer for this comment but would like to keep this viral family text in the results section such that it can be considered as a reader reads details regarding what we found through our literature review. We have added a sentence to explain this strategy.

Comment 4: The discussion could better summarise issues around co-circulation, inter-species transmission, reassortment, and implications for surveillance and health systems.

- We appreciate this insightful suggestion. While such data would be interesting, they were generally absent for most viruses discussed. While winter surveillance for causes of influenza-like-illness is conducted, Mongolia lacks a strong bioscience public health or veterinary health research network to generate study data.

Comment 5: Selection process for included materials should be described.

- We agree and have now added a clearer description of the selection process.

Comment 6 : Citation formatting appears atypical for the journal.

- We agree with this observation. We recognized that the references are not in the recommended format for Viruses. Due to the movement of multiple files between the US and Mongolia and problems with software licensing, the Endnote references or catalog are not functioning correctly. I (corresponding author) corrected the first reference, unformatted the Endnote citations and painstakingly reentered each reference (10 hrs or so of tedium) only to find this activity added even more problems when trying to recompile the references. One good thing about this exercise was that in reentering the references I found two errors and removed the below two references and the text in the manuscript.
1. Choi K-S, L. E.-K., Jeon W-J, Batchuulon D, Sodnomdarjaa R, Park M-J, .; et al., Molecular Biological Characterization of the First Newcastle Disease Virus Isolated in Mongolia. Korean Journal of Poultry Science. The Korean Society of Poultry Science 2011, 38, 88–96. (This Korean journal report was only partially published in English and by our review guidance, we should not have used it.）
2. Branda, F.; Pavia, G.; Ciccozzi, A.; Quirino, A.; Marascio, N.; Matera, G.; Romano, C.; Locci, C.; Azzena, I.; Pascale, N.; Sanna, D.; Casu, M.; Ceccarelli, G.; Ciccozzi, M.; Scarpa, F., Zoonotic Paramyxoviruses: Evolution, Ecology, and Public Health Strategies in a Changing World. Viruses 2024, 16, (11), 1688. (After publication this article was retracted by Viruses in 2025 and should not be cited)
I am able to remove these two references and the corresponding text from the manuscript but I am not able to compile a revised reference list using the correct reference style for Viruses. I made many attempts. Perhaps this is problem with the template or with the manuscript file.
I hope the journal has software that can recompile the references into the correct format. I have failed after many attempts.

Comment7 : Reference 1 refers to respiratory burden in the context of COVID-19 but is used to support general global disease burden. Additional pre-pandemic references should be added.

- Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree and have replaced the reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled " The High Interrelated Morbidity Respiratory Viruses Cause among Humans and Animals in Mongolia” was evaluated. Researchers provide a comprehensive and timely overview of respiratory virus morbidity in Mongolia, with a focus on six major viral families. The manuscript is well-structured, clearly written, and addresses a topic of significant public health and veterinary importance. The integration of human and animal data through a One Health lens is a particular strength. The paper is in the scope of the journal and may be published.

Negative aspects

1.Repetitive Content:

Significant repetition is present in Sections 3.1.7.4 and 3.1.7.5 (pages 8–9), where entire paragraphs are duplicated. This should be carefully revised to avoid redundancy.

2.Table 1 Clarification:

The table lists 20 human and 278 animal virus types/subtypes, but the text does not fully explain how these numbers were derived or what they represent. Clarification is needed to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

3.Virus Family Coverage Imbalance:

While Orthomyxoviridae and Coronaviridae are thoroughly discussed, other families (e.g., Picornaviridae, Adenoviridae) receive less attention. A more balanced presentation would strengthen the review.

4.Lack of Critical Synthesis:

The review summarizes existing literature but could better synthesize gaps, contradictions, or trends across studies. For example, how do surveillance capacities differ between human and animal sectors? What are the consistent barriers to intervention?

5.Language and Flow:

Some sections (e.g., 3.1.6–3.1.9) are overly descriptive and could benefit from more concise writing and subheadings for better flow.

6.Abbreviations:

Ensure all abbreviations are defined at first use (e.g., EIV, RSV, HAdV, HPIV, PPRV).

Reference Consistency:

Some references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., missing authors, journal names). Please verify all citations against the target journal’s style.

7.Conclusion Section:

The conclusion is brief and could be expanded to highlight key recommendations for policy, surveillance, and research, especially in the context of One Health.

Author Response

Comment 1: Sections 3.1.7.4 and 3.1.7.5 contain duplicated paragraphs.

Thank you for noting this. We have removed duplicate text and reorganized these sections.

Comment 2: The table presents 20 human and 278 animal virus types/subtypes, but the derivation and meaning of these numbers require clarification.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have now added a detailed explanation in the Methods section and beneath Table 1 describing how the numbers 20 human and 278 animal virus types/subtypes were derived. The counts represent all unique virus types, subtypes, or lineages identified in the included studies.

Comment 3: Orthomyxoviridae and Coronaviridae are discussed extensively, while other families receive less attention.

Thank you for this observation. More citations for these two viral families were available and hence their sections are longer.

Comment 4: The manuscript summarizes literature but could better synthesise gaps, contradictions, and cross-sectoral trends.

We have added new comments to the conclusion.

Comment 5: Sections 3.1.6–3.1.9 are overly descriptive; improved flow and clearer subheadings are needed.

Thank you. We have deleted redundant text.

Comment 6: Ensure all abbreviations are defined at first use (EIV, RSV, HAdV, HPIV, PPRV, etc.).

We have checked all abbreviations and defined them upon first mention.

Comment 7: Some references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted.

We have recompiled the reference section.

Comment 8: The conclusion is brief; it should highlight key recommendations for policy, surveillance, and research.

We have strengthened the conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

This is a first revision of a previously reviewed manuscript of the same title. The authors have provided a point by point response to this reviewer’s comments, which is much appreciated.

General comments

The introduction is substantially improved, and the retained references appropriately cited. The methods section is substantially improved as well, however the authors might choose to add the initials of the three authors assigned to search, as in “… a three-member team (xx, xx, xx)”.

Specific comments

References 1 and 2 have been removed, however the citations now start at numbers 3-5 in the second paragraph of the introduction. It is not clear to this reviewer why the references are not automatically updated using Endnote, which should repopulate as citations are added or dropped, unless whoever is editing these is not using the same library as the main author who originally applied Endnote citations. This is easily fixable either by sharing the same library (in the app’s References menu) or by updating the editor’s library. If the manuscript editor’s Endnote app does not see the citations as Endnote references, but as text, another simple fix is to have the original author take control of updating the references, and then using or downloading a reference format compatible with the journal’s format from within the app (Tools), as the current format is atypical (but subject to the journal’s discretion). This is a simple, even if cumbersome, fix. This is also essential due diligence for submitting manuscripts for peer review.
Page 3, line 109; “The review focused on…six key viral”. This sentence is incomplete.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

Editor Comments

(I) Ensure all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript. We note that referenced We have done so.

(II) Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so editors and reviewers can see any changes made. We have done so.

(III) Provide a cover letter to respond to the reviewers’ comments and explain, point by point, the details of the manuscript revisions. Cover letter and response to reviewers have been prepared.

(IV) If the reviewer(s) recommended references, critically analyze them to ensure that their inclusion would enhance your manuscript. If you believe these references are unnecessary, you should not include them. We have studied the references. We note that in the manuscript body reference 36 precedes reference 35 and reference 53 precedes reference 52. We have added comments to the manuscript accordingly.

(V) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review reports, include an explanation in your appeal. Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Round 2 Comments

Summary

This is a first revision of a previously reviewed manuscript of the same title. The authors have provided a point by point response to this reviewer’s comments, which is much appreciated.

General comments

The changes and edits made to the results section are appreciated. The article is a substantial undertaking. The reviewer’s only concern is whether or not the length of the article is suitable for a broader audience. It is undoubtedly of substantial value to health officials, decision makers and the research community in Mongolia. Thanks for your thoughts. As English language infectious disease review literature is sparse for Mongolia, we are confident the manuscript will be important to scientists and policy officials who work to prevent disease in Mongolia.

Specific comments

References 1 and 2 have been removed, however the citations now start at numbers 3-5 in the second paragraph of the introduction. It is not clear to this reviewer why the references are not automatically updated using Endnote, which should repopulate as citations are added or dropped, unless whoever is editing these is not using the same library as the main author who originally applied Endnote citations. This is easily fixable either by sharing the same library (in the app’s References menu) or by updating the editor’s library. If the manuscript editor’s Endnote app does not see the citations as Endnote references, but as text, another simple fix is to have the original author take control of updating the references, and then using or downloading a reference format compatible with the journal’s format from within the app (Tools), as the current format is atypical (but subject to the journal’s discretion). This is a simple, even if cumbersome, fix. This is also essential due diligence for submitting manuscripts for peer review. We thank the reviewer for the comments. We have added back in references 1 and 2 into the manuscript body. We agree with the reviewer that the references require reformatting. As we have explained to the editors, due to software license problems in Mongolia, hand entry with errors of references by Mongolian scholars, likely corrupt elements of the MS Word file, we have tried and failed (more than 10hrs of reference reentry!) in recompiling the reference list in Viruses style. However, the journal editor at Viruses has assured us they can fix the references. I have added URLs where sources are endoubt.
Page 3, line 109; “The review focused on…six key viral”. This sentence is incomplete. Thanks. We have revised the text.