PONE-D-20-11700

Effects of Residential Mobility and Migration on Standards of Living in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A Life-course Approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Patel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Jul 11 2020 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wenjia Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure section* (delete as necessary):

"AP received funding from the World Bank Group via Research Agreement No. 7186069.

Funder website: https://www.worldbank.org

GJ from the sponsoring organization played a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish and prepare the manuscript and are listed as a co-author."

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : 'World Bank Group'.

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please carefully address the reviewers' comments. Also, the literature about methodology is quite old; and more discussions and reflections on the sequence analytic methods are needed in the final discussion section, particularly the matching and visualization techniques. Related to it, some references are suggested: Cornwell (2015) Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. Zhang and Thill (2017) Detecting and visualizing cohesive activity-travel patterns. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately 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: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ONE 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: This paper aims to describe how two dimensions of Global South living standards – access to water and sanitation – have varied across the life courses of people with different types of residential history (in particular their migration experience and whether or not they have lived in a shanty town). The data are unusually rich for a study of residential moves in the Global South and the sample size is also larger than usual (n=2397). These are appealing features of the study and the findings contain some points of interest about the extent to which people can improve their residential conditions in Dar es Salaam.

However, several aspects of the manuscript require some attention before this work can be published.

1. Intro and literature review

The introduction needs to clearly explain why a longitudinal life course approach is necessary to better understand residential moves and their outcomes in Dar es Salaam. Why is this approach needed – what theoretical or practical insights are provided by looking at the entire housing history of individuals? How does this overcome the limitations of cross-sectional analyses that are (rightly in my view) critiqued in this manuscript? ‘We strongly believe…’ (p3) is an assertion that needs to be backed up by some sort of reasoned argument as to the advantages of such an approach.

Secondly, the literature review needs to more effectively explain precisely what previous studies have found about how various variables affect mobility experiences and housing career trajectories. For example, ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors are mentioned but exactly what types of pushes and pulls are known to matter is never explained. When reviewing existing literature it is important to clearly describe what previous studies have found (e.g. by mentioning the direction of estimated effects, their magnitude, where previous research has been conducted etc). A thorough sweep of this section is required to deal with this issue.

Last, the description of life course theories is quite simplistic and contains errors – for example not all events can be considered ‘turning points’ (p6). Key aspects of the life course approach are also missing from the description such as the way this framework allows scholars to take the growing diversity, de-standardisation and dynamism of lives into account in a rich way. See Stone et al (2014) in Demography or Coulter et al (2016) in Progress in Human Geography. Furthermore, I’d like to see some discussion of period and cohort effects (see Glen Elder’s work) given that these influence the types of housing people access over the course of their lives. E.g. over time general improvements in the housing stock could be expected to increase the proportion of people living in good housing conditions.

2. Context

I think a little more contextual description is needed for a study on housing conditions. Some general background on Dar es Salaam is given but there is no description of: (i) how housing provision is organised and regulated in Tanzania; (ii) urban/development policies related to housing and water services (e.g. site and service schemes, funding mechanisms, NGO activities) or (iii) how these have changed over the times the sampled individuals have lived through. This description is really important as the opportunity structure people have experienced is probably the single most important influence on these aspects of their living conditions. E.g. if only 5% of dwellings have piped water then it is by definition going to be very unlikely that sampled households will have improved this aspect of their housing conditions over the life course. Indeed a more important question not addressed in this paper is probably who improves their housing conditions over time and who does not?

In essence, I am asking the authors to devote more space to discussing how the urban context may have enabled and/or limited how easy it is for people to improve their residential conditions over time.

3. Methods

This is a fairly basic study that describes patterns and eschews any form of explanation. This is fair enough but a major problem is that the analysis takes no account of the number of moves people have made. This means that qualitatively similar types of sequence such as 1,1,1 and 1,1,1,1 are split up and treated as separate experiences (e.g. see pp16- 17). A more data-led clustering technique or using a priori types (e.g. upward trajectory; stable; downward trajectory; downward event with recovery) would be better.

In addition, no account has been taken of the way that the age of sample members probably influences the number of moves they have made. At the very least I’d like to see some discussion of this and ideally some type of multivariate analysis should be conducted to disentangle how multiple independent variables influence housing biographies. That would yeild a richer paper.

Minor points

P3 – I’m not convinced that Global North research does tend to see residential mobility as a good thing. There are large bodies of work on residential insecurity and the way life events adversely trigger residential relocation. Take care.

P6 and elsewhere – the use of the term ‘households’ is problematic throughout this paper. A key life course insight is that households are not unified social actors that are stable through time. The composition of households changes across time and the discussion needs to reflect this. Individuals are a more appropriate unit of analysis for mobility work.

P7-8 – these hypotheses are not testable predictions and so need to be reformulated or framed as ‘expectations’.

Figures – these lack informative legends and are quite messy and unhelpful. Can the presentation be improved to make the central message easier to follow?

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting and well-written paper investigating the impact of residential mobility on housing conditions. The paper applies a novel methodology, the life course approach, and presents empirical findings from a large-scale survey recently carried out in Dar es Salaam.

My main critique of the paper is the narrow conceptualization of housing quality. The paper focus exclusively on two particular services; water and sanitation. The paper largely overlooks other important aspects of housing quality, such as space, privacy, building materials, security measures etc. The narrow focus on water and sanitation risk overlooking that residential mobility may be associated with improvements in other aspects of housing quality. The paper also overlooks wider neighborhood characteristics such as density, greenery, plot layout, security, social profile of neighbors etc. that might drive residential mobility. For an example, a household might move from a small room in a centrally located and relatively well-serviced neighborhood to a larger accommodation in a peripheral and poorly serviced neighborhood. Such a move may result in poorer access to water and sanitation, alongside improvements in relation to living space, privacy and a more pleasant and secure neighborhood. The narrow focus on water and sanitation is especially problematic in the context of Dar es Salaam, where access to water and sanitation is very limited for the city as a whole and especially beyond the central parts of the city. Therefore, access to water and sanitation may not be strongly correlated with alternative indicators of housing quality.

The narrow focus on water and sanitation also overlooks the significance of tenure form and tenure transitions as a motivation for residential mobility. For an example a new migrants in the city might start out living with relatives in the city before moving into their own rented room or house. Such a move could easily entail downgrading in relation to access to services, but might improve privacy and feeling of independence. The transition from renting to owner-occupier might also drive much residential mobility within the city. For most aspiring homeowners in Dar es Salaam this transition involves moving out of rental accommodation in consolidated central areas with relatively good access to services to engage in incremental construction of owner-occupier housing in newly developing, peripheral areas, which are often poorly serviced. As such, aspiring homeowners may have to accept poorer access to services to enjoy the benefits of owning their own home and improvements in access to services are unrelated to residential mobility, but rather linked with in-situ improvements through gradual private investments and lobbying efforts towards urban authorities. See Andreasen, MH & Agergaard, J 2016, 'Residential Mobility and Homeownership in Dar es Salaam', Population and Development Review, bind 42, no. 1, p. 95 110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2016.00104.x and Andreasen, MH & Møller-Jensen, L 2016, 'Beyond the networks: Self-help services and post-settlement network extensions in the periphery of Dar es Salaam', Habitat International, vol 53, p. 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.003.

Finally, the paper is characterized by unclear conceptualization of other central concepts applied in the analysis:

• Classes of households: The paper hypothesizes that living conditions vary between “classes of households” (ll. 170-171). It is unclear how classes are conceptualized and differences between classes seem not to be addressed in the results section at all.

• Migrants and non-migrants: The paper hypothesizes that the experiences of migrants are systematically different from that of non-migrants and natives (ll. 171-172). It is unclear how migrants and non-migrants are defined in the analysis. Migrants likely originate from outside the city, but how long must a person have lived in the city to no longer be conceived of as a migrant?

• Slums and non-slums: The paper hypothesizes that people living in slums follow different housing careers than those living in non-slums (ll. 172-173). It is unclear how slums (or shanties as it is called later in the paper) are defined. The paper briefly explains that slums and non-slums are identified using very high resolution satellite images (l. 210), but is it not clear on what observable characteristics are used to distinguish. The slum concept usually denotes urban areas characterized by poor housing quality, but surely this is not easily observable through analysis of satellite imagery.

Small things

• l. 185: The sweeping generalization hat Dar es Salaam has the same “environmental and infrastructural challenges similar to any other city in the world” is puzzling and would seem to require a more thorough explanation and argumentation.

**********

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 you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Manja Hoppe Andreasen

[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.

PONE-D-20-11700R1

Effects of Residential Mobility and Migration on Standards of Living in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A Life-course Approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Patel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Oct 02 2020 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wenjia Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

**********

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: This is my second reading of this manuscript and it is pleasing to see that the authors have attended to the issues raised in my previous review. A better case is built for doing a longitudinal analysis and the discussion of life course perspectives is much improved. I also appreciate the use of a priori sequence ‘types’ that give much greater clarity to the analysis. Taken together, these changes have produced a much-improved paper. Good work.

There are a few small changes I’d suggest the authors consider in their revision:

P3 - can you give a local example or two of the types of policies mentioned here?

P5 – it would be worth mentioning the gendered nature of migration here. Developed world research has identified women as ‘tied movers/stayers’ (Cooke 2008 in Population, Space and Place) and the issue of ‘left-behind’ families is a key one across much of the Global South. The basic point to note here is that the positive wage benefits of migrating may accrue only to certain household members.

P6 – Household ageing is a problematic idea when households are made up of varying persons. Try and make sure the paper consistently notes that your analysis is of individual life course and housing careers.

P9 – RQ2 implies causality and that cannot be tested here. Avoid causal language unless justified by your research approach (e.g. the use of experimental rather than observational data).

Sequence plots – I still find these rather messy and unhelpful. For example, I struggle to see from them what the most common patterns of sequence are (as described in the text). Can they be improved in some way?

Sequence plots – the n here looks to be <2000 for most of the figures. This makes sense when subgroup analyses are conducted but not when whole sample descriptives are presented (e.g. Figures 1-2). Why is the n < 2397?

Migrant and shanty sequence analysis – rather than presenting so many plots, I wonder whether crosstabs of migrant/shanty status (x) against sequence type (y) would be easier to read? They would also enable statistical comparisons to be drawn – e.g. to see whether more migrants than stayers are ‘perpetually deprived’.

Figure 14 is rather hard to read.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my comments comprehensively and within the limitations of the data. The authors have undertaken significant revisions which have greatly improved the paper. Generally, I think this manuscript is ready for publication. I have a couple of small comments:

l. 221: Dar es Salaam is not home to 40% of Tanzania's population. The total population of Tanzania was 44.9 million according to the 2012 census, whereas in Dar es Salaam region it was 4.4 million

l. 264: Why the date and time stamp in the text?

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Rory Coulter

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.]

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.

Effects of Residential Mobility and Migration on Standards of Living in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A Life-course Approach

PONE-D-20-11700R2

Dear Dr. Patel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wenjia Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Rory Coulter

Reviewer #2: No