Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 14, 2023 |
|---|
|
PCLM-D-23-00268 What is a Heat Wave: A Survey and Literature Synthesis of Heat Wave Definitions across the United States PLOS Climate Dear Dr. Bunting, 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 Feb 21 2024 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:
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, Teodoro Georgiadis 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 2.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 additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information." 3. Please note that PLOS CLIMATE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 4. Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format only. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures 5. 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: Fig 1: 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): I suggest the author to provide the minor revision suggested by rev#1 [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 ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I don't know ********** 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: 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 ********** 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: I agree with the authros that a formal heat wave definition is important because so far there are different definitions. From an atmospheric point of view, a heat wave is well defined (even if in various ways, but considering atmospheric variables and the duration of certain conditions, it has been possible to define it). The problem is to find a definition based on the health effects on the population. This work attempts to fill this gap and the information they have collected through a survey, analysed statistically. I think it is ready to be published I only have a few minor revisions to suggest. MINOR REVISION In Introduction: add the heat wave definition of World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Line 137 ‘people fully completed the survey, whereas 25 individuals partially completed 166 the survey’: I think this is a result as in fact it is reported. I would delete it from here Figure 3 : add a) b) and c) in the figure Figure 4 : add a) and B) in the figure Reviewer #2: 1) Regarding the answer to question (2) "2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?", I am not in a position to know the details of the statistical processing and specifically the Qualtrics and R packages. 2) Heat waves are regarded by the U.S. National Weather Service as a major, in fact leading, cause of weather-related fatalities in the U.S. in most years (Robinson 2001). Heat waves are the last extreme weather events without a formal, on the books, definition. Instead, across the U.S. those working on extreme heat event management, forecasting, and planning are each using differing definitions in their work. With such differing definitions being used there are widespread impacts including some to human and environmental health, natural resource management, and long-term emergency management planning. Based on the analysis performed in this manuscript, it can be concluded that the findings of this research can help the emergency managers and climatologists, those who face or plan for such events more often, the definition of heat events through literature review and extensive research in the United States. 3) The paper is interesting and provides a detailed analysis through a short 11-questions survey and subsequent text mining, according to which, widespread variability in the common heat wave definitions is found, but a consistent pattern of core key term usage including aspects of heat duration, extreme temperature, and humidity. Also found is little to no use of non-climatic variables such as exposure, vulnerability, population and land cover/land use. 4) The section "Conclusions" is missing. Please note that this section is not mandatory, but could be added to the manuscript to facilitate the reader. 5) This publication establishes a foundation for further research. ********** 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: Yes: Marianna Nardino Reviewer #2: Yes: Aristeidis Mertzanis, Professor, Department of Agribusiness and Supply Chain Management, School of Applied Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Athens, Thiva, Greece ********** [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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
What is a Heat Wave: A Survey and Literature Synthesis of Heat Wave Definitions across the United States PCLM-D-23-00268R1 Dear Dr. Bunting, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'What is a Heat Wave: A Survey and Literature Synthesis of Heat Wave Definitions across the United States' 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, Teodoro Georgiadis Academic Editor PLOS Climate *********************************************************** The authors have provided the proper answers to the reviewers' comments. It is also possible to note they have added and revised a few critical points convincingly adding further information that improved convincingly the manuscript. I strongly suggest it for publication in the present version. Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .