PCLM-D-25-00376

On the compound effect of humidity and temperature on mortality in the Eastern Mediterranean

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Tzyrkalli,

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 Jan 08 2026 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,

Teodoro Georgiadis

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. 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, we expect all author-generated code to 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.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Both reviewers are extremely aligned and coherent in their evaluation of the manuscript. They also indicate to the authors some minor modifications to improve their paper, and I suggest they follow these indications precisely. Thus, my suggestion is for minor revision to be provided.

[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.? 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.-->? 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.? 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: I don't know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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.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.-->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.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: Manuscript Number: PCLM-D-25-00376

Title: On the compound effect of humidity and temperature on mortality in the Eastern Mediterranean

Although the topic is of interest to the scientific community, this paper requires further improvement before it can be considered for publication. Authors should reconsider the paper's main objective in light of its content. They should strive to synthesize and emphasize the study's main findings, avoiding overly long sentences. Moreover, authors should avoid drawing risky conclusions.

Evaluation; Minor Revision.

1. Abstract: The authors should revise the abstract. It is too general and prolonged. Moreover, it could be further developed. The article contains a lot of interesting data. An informative and representative conclusion should be added to the abstract.

2. Introduction: This effect can become lethal when the wet bulb temperature (a combined measure of temperature and humidity) exceeds 35◦C –although lower wet bulb temperatures can also be deleterious if the exposure is prolonged.

The Arabian Peninsula and Gulf states (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman) are much hotter, with annual means above 25 °C and summer maxima often exceeding 45 °C.

How to explain it? The Arabian is generally a high temperature.

3. Daily mortality: The mortality dataset from the Cyprus Ministry of Health is rich in temporal and demographic detail but limited in geographic scope, diversity of causes of death, and potential reporting accuracy. These factors may weaken the statistical power and generalizability of the health–temperature relationship across the wider EMME region.

4. Many sentences are too long and lack much content. Use concise sentences to convey your point.

5. In the main text, many numeric data are given with too many significant figures; 2 significant figures suffice, and 3 suffice in case the first significant figure is "1".

6. You must provide all the figures in high resolution. Make all the labels and legends more legible.

7. Conclusion: The findings could be further developed, as the article contains a wealth of interesting data.

Reviewer #2: The article is very well strctured. The conclusions are really short considering the huge ammount of data proposed. I suggest to revise expanding this chapter.

Very interesting the analysis of coastal and non-coastal data and results.

The methodology is well described and the results are proposed in a clear and extremely accurate way.

The issue of the research work is esxtremely important and very actual for the potential impacts on population due to combined effect of a atmospheric determinant of health.

I suggest to revise the conclusions to move them more informative.

best wishes

**********

-->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.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. 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: Worradorn PhairuangWorradorn PhairuangWorradorn PhairuangWorradorn Phairuang

Reviewer #2: 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.]

-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

On the compound effect of humidity and temperature on mortality in the Eastern Mediterranean

PCLM-D-25-00376R1

Dear Ms Tzyrkalli,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'On the compound effect of humidity and temperature on mortality in the Eastern Mediterranean' 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

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The author have improved their manuscript properly following the reviewer's comments and suggestions. They have considerably improved the three points raised by the reviewers, concerning the abstract, the vapor issue, and the conclusions. the manuscript now is worthy of publication.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):