R1

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the article entitled “A community-directed integrated Strongyloides control program in Queensland, Australia”. I read with great interest the article, and assessed the quality of the manuscript. I thought that the overall quality does not meet the quality benchmarks for publication in the Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. However, I wrote a comment on the manuscript below for your guidance.

Major Comments：

The article focused on a community-based Strongyloides control program, and performed it according to the work plan. The authors also described an involvement of primary school children. However, the results only included the number of participants, sex, age, and the positive serology rate. Not only that, the Discussion section may not be written based on the Results. For example, at least the results of the social/clinical impact of this program are needed. The authors should check the construction of this article before submitting to other journals (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion; IMRAD). I think the community-based program focused on this article is important, and expect a future submission of related works to this Journal.

R2

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the article again, and assessed the quality of the manuscript. The authors partially re-wrote to improve the article, but I thought that the overall quality does not meet the quality benchmarks for publication in the Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. However, I wrote comments on the manuscript below for your guidance.

Comments：

The authors responded that “this is an article that describes a significant study that Rick Speare payed a significant role”, and I understood. However, this article still includes the Results section. It is a section for an original research article (or a systematic review article). If this section is the results of this study, authors should state the accuracy and the consistency of the blood test in the Methods section. In the Discussion section, authors stated that “this is the only description of a successful community-led Strongyloides control program”. This only based on the results of blood tests, but there may be other (lots of) confounding factors. The authors should consider about these issues, and discuss neutrally. When re-writing the paper for other journals, the authors had better to check the copyright clearance of the figure captured from the CDC website they used as Figure 1.