PCLM-D-22-00123

Lethal heatwaves are challenging India's sustainable development

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Debnath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In addition to my comments on the paper, I suggest the authors to review PLOS Climate's formatting style and adhering to it in the revised submission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. Please clarify all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

c. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

d. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

2. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance.  We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figure  1 & 3: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

It is a well written paper with some arguments which are kind of obvious, and some are very farfetched and no supported by the data. This is because both CVI and HI have their own value and use and looking at them from the same lens may not the right approach. I completely agree with the authors argument that HI or more specific climate specific indicators should be part of CVI. And for this, it would have been appropriate if authors would have undertaken analysis to demonstrate this using data. The argument that HI is weakening India’s progress towards SDGs is not well placed. This conclusion cannot be drawn at least based on the data presented in this paper. I think only a trend analysis of the SDGs and HI can help to draw such conclusion. Some of the other minor observations are:

1. Why in Figure 2, additional SDGs have been considered then what is included in CVI? Some description around this would be useful.

2. Given that within one SDG, there were multiple indicators, how did you arrive at their ranking? Please elaborate.

3. Why each state does not have a value for SDG in Figure 2?

4. Given that there is a time lag between CVI (specifically indicators considered for CVI) and HI, please discuss about its implication on the study results.

5. In line 320: The authors say they assumed a hazard probability measure through HI to be compatible with CVI. I suggest authors discuss more about it in the method section and what implications it has for HI vs CVI comparison.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper “Lethal heatwaves are challenging India's sustainable development” is a very nice paper and this type of study can contribute to global literature. The analytical approach used in the paper are a good exercise of CVI and HI vulnerability calculation in India. However, there are few observations and comments in the paper as follows:

• The use of CVI and HI index are more or less Indian context, so these measures how there useful in other countries and at global level that must be tested.

• For the HI estimation used here the IMD data from April, 2022. April month is not the right month to see the heatwaves or heat impact. If the authors would have used IMD heat data from April, May and June months then it would have shown a clear picture of a year. However, it may be more suggestable to use trend data (different time points over two three decades), then the results would have given more in-depth situation of the country rather only use for a month. I don’t think we can conclude anything from a single timepoint data and accordingly giving suggestion based on the result would not be advisable.

• These types of analysis particularly HI estimation is useful if it would have used district level analysis, so that small area estimation results would have useful for gross root level planning at district levels.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript entitled "Lethal heatwaves are challenging India's sustainable development" is very interesting and well written.

However, I have a few suggestions for further improvement, before accepting it for publication.

1. Use of language like, "we, I" doesn't look good in the scientific research article, I would suggest changing in whole manuscript.

2. Introduction is very scientific, but if introduction can be started with addition of one paragraph about how India is suffering multiple hazards at same time as flood in north India and heatwave in central India, then drought in some other part of India. Then continuing paragraph for heatwave hazard. Author may look following interesting article about flood in North-eastern part of India: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273384

3. Authors have discussed the SDG and other parameters for Vulnerability Index, but one thing is missing out is "coping capacity of people". People of Andhra Pradesh have higher coping capacity of temperature than people of Himachal, Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir. I would suggest working on those parameters too for a more accurate climate vulnerability Index.

Reviewer #3: This paper considers whether the current approach to identifying vulnerability in India through their CVI is sufficient under increasing heat waves. The study argues that the current CVI which consists of non-climatic indicators of vulnerability needs to be used together with the Heat Wave index to determine areas of priority for adaptation.

The paper is generally reasonably well written but does require a careful read for sense and some language editing in places.

ABSTRACT

CI should be CVI.

Last sentence needs rewording to make better sense.

INTRODUCTION

Line 9 - the ongoing lethal heat wave.

Line 17 - these 2050 baselines estimates

Line 62 - index

Lines 47 - 53 - this paragraph needs some editing to make it much clearer what the aim of the paper is and the motivation for the work - i.e. addressing a gap in understanding/literature. As it is currently written it is confusing and the flow is not logical.

Lines 54- 58 - the research questions need rephrasing - they need language editing to make sense and the 3rd one ..how can India....sounds strange - it should be more about what the researchers are doing to contribute to a policy change in how vulnerability assessments are conducted in India.

Lines 62 - 66 - it would be good to have some explanation why the analysis was conducted at two different scales.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Perhaps some sub-headings for the different steps in the analysis process will help the reader to follow the methods.

RESULTS

Lines 155 - 157 - isn't this statement a bit obvious since the CVI does not include any direct climate indicators. I think what is more important is that the work shows that a vulnerability index that does not include measures of the primary climate change risks/threats (heat waves, floods) may fail to identify regions of greatest vulnerability to climate change at the intersection of climate extremes and the non-climate, structural and social-economic factors that increases sensitivity. I am wondering if it may be useful in the introduction to consider how the concept of vulnerability is used in this paper, and provide a definition.

Last paragraph may be more suitable for the discussion.

DISCUSSION

Based on what the authors found re heat waves would it be important to also consider other climate indicators such as storm event and floods. What about when all of these coincide with areas of high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity?

Breaking the discussion up with a couple of subsections may help guide the reader through the main messages from the work.

CONCLUSION

Does there need to be a new composite index or would it be more useful work with overlapping layers in information in a spatial analysis similar to what was done in this paper. Indices can be tricky.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: plos comments.docx

PCLM-D-22-00123R1

Lethal heatwaves are challenging India's sustainable development

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Debnath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 08 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

3. Figs 1 and 3: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for addressing the comments from reviewers. However, the manuscript requires thorough editing as in several instances, the readability can be improved. The paper would benefit if it can be edited by a native English speaker.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Accept

Reviewer #2: Author's have modified the manuscript and it can be published now.

Reviewer #3: Please see the Word doc where I started to assist with the editing. However, I stopped doing this and rather suggest you get some colleague with experience in the field to read it and someone with language editing skills to do a final read. There are still too many confusing sentences and small issues for it to be ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Preet Lal

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCLM-D-22-00123_R1.docx

Lethal heatwaves are challenging India's sustainable development

PCLM-D-22-00123R2

Dear Dr Debnath,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Lethal heatwaves are challenging India's sustainable development' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):