PONE-D-20-18521

Exploring Persons with Disabilities Preparedness, Perceptions and Experiences of Natural Disasters in Tuvalu

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammadnezhad,

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.

The judgment of the three Reviewers was very positive. Basically, they mainly highlight shortcomings in the writing that require revision before the manuscript can be published. The Reviewers provided suggestions for the correction of certain expressions and phrases. But, if necessary, the Authors would do well to use a professional proofreading service.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 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,

Stefano Federici, Ph.D.

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. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics.

3. 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). 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.

4.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5.Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Tamara Mangum.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The judgment of the three Reviewers was very positive. Basically, they mainly highlight shortcomings in the writing that require revision before the manuscript can be published. The Reviewers provided suggestions for the correction of certain expressions and phrases. But, if necessary, the Authors would do well to use a professional proofreading service.

[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

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?

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: In relation to question 3 above i assume all data are held by the appropriate departments who employ the authors. presumably the data are also confidential.

in relation to question 2 above, the surveyed population was small in size, but acceptable. More sophisticated statistics would not have enhanced the analysis.

In relation to question 4 above, the manuscript is intelligible but there are many mistakes. I have converted the pdf to Word and used track changes to suggest recommended corrections to the English expression. I have also inserted a number of review comments on specific statements. This copy of the paper is uploaded for your guidance in making corrections.

The results section could benefit from some reduction in length. It is a bit tedious and repetitive in several places.

The discussion section is very clearly stated and well connected to findings from the general literature.

Reviewer #2: This study investigates an understudied geographical area and vulnerable group of individuals with disabilities. The manuscript, after the revisions and addressing the comments from the previous reviewers, is sound and the data support the conclusion.

Please make adjustment to Focus Group Discussion and its abbreviation FDG. You may change it to FGD to be consistent with the order of words.

[Focus Group Discussion (FDG) in Abstract and Focus Group Discussions (FDG) in Table 2]

Reviewer #3: I have read the MS in depth and also the previous reviewers' comments and author responses. The authors' changes appear to well address the reviewers comments and i feel the MS is now a topical, socially valuable, and methodologically sound piece of work meriting publication. Articulating PwDs lived experiences of disasters and their suggestions for future disaster planning is very valuable for improving future disaster response/management strategies for this group. There are still some english and small grammatical issues that need attending to,

Suggestions;

P 2. Abstract: Conclusion, first sentence needs reworking to clarify meaning. "This study highlights the salience in understanding PwDs prepare and experience, which influences their resilience to disasters". Maybe change to something like "This study highlights the importance of understanding PwDs' lived disaster experience to improve their preparedness and resilience for future disasters".

P 6. Line 5 in Methodology. Insert sample size (31) "Purposive sampling was used to select "31" participants..."

P 8. Line 8. insert apostrophe after "researcher". "....the researcher's personal experience...."

P 9. Line 3. Change "participants understanding" to "participants understood"

P 9. Line 4. Change "translator translated back to english.." to "...translator back-translated to english.."

P 9. Lines 9 & 15. Change "users that" and participants that" to "users who... and "participants who..."

P 10. line 7. Change "interviews..." to "interviewees..."

P 11. Line 3. Change heading "Data management and analysis" to "Data Collection"

P 11. Insert heading ""Data Analysis" between lines 11 & 12.

P 13. Line 1. Change "The themes from this study..." to "The themes to emerge from this study..."

P 14. Lines 1 to 3. Delete ""For instance a participant asserted that there should be workshops and have more awareness programs, trainings on disaster.... to be inclusive". This sentence is repeated in entirety in italicized example immediately following.

P 15. Lines 10 & 11. Insert "United Nations" before "Convention on the rights of PwDs..." Also capitalize "R"ights of "P"ersons with "D"isabilities"

**********

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: 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: PONE-D-20-18521_reviewer (1).docx

Exploring Persons with Disabilities Preparedness, Perceptions and Experiences of Natural Disasters in Tuvalu

PONE-D-20-18521R1

Dear Dr. Mohammadnezhad,

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,

Stefano Federici, Ph.D.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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?

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Page 14 " cost the lives of PwDs in Sri Lanka as they did not understand the information to evacuate

during the 2015 Tsunami" & page 47 "during the 2015 Tsunami"- do you mean the 2005 Tsunami?

Table 3 is not core to results and could be relegated to an appendix and successive tables renumbered.

Some of the quotations contain grammatical errors. This is quite normal when interviewing respondents and reproducing their statements verbatim. However, you state that original responses were in Tuvaluan so errors are those of the transcription unless you were making attempts to translate grammatical errors accurately. This is highly unlikely as they would not translate directly.

I suggest you carry out a further in depth proof read of the whole paper to correct a small number of minor errors as it is not possible to annotate this pdf copy.

Reviewer #2: It is publishable manuscript. I would recommend to accept the paper. It seems to me that the author has revised the manuscript to address other reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #3: Reviewer 3. All suggestions from my earlier review addressed satisfactorily. Recommend acceptance. A very useful addition to small but growing body of important pasifika research on disability issues.

**********

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: David King

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No