Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 15, 2019 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-19-31769 Governmental Ranking of Class and Academic Performance of Indian Adolescents PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Dr. Gaab, 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. I would like to thank you for your patience. Both reviewers liked your paper, and I believe that their comments will help you improve the article. In addition to their feedback, I have the following suggestions:
We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tomáš Želinský, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 1. 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. 2. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information. 3. Thank you for your ethics statement : "The research project was submitted to the Cantonal Ethics Committee (Basel-Stadt and Basel-Land), which positively acknowledged the study protocol and informed consent forms, but which also required the necessary permission from the respective school management trusties as well as the permission of school principals, which was then ob-tained in subsequence. " Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research 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 more 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 sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) 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. 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 upload a copy of Figure 1, to which you refer in your text on page 16. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. [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: Partly ********** 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: I found your paper very motivating and has global approach towards issues on discrimination. A few more changes as suggested in the report will improve the quality of the paper. Wish you all the best. Reviewer #2: Review: PONE-D-19-31769 The manuscript deals with the relationship between the government classes and academic performance (AP) of the students of class X and XI in two states of India. The topic is of immense importance and quite under-researched. While the paper has potential, it has not fully utilized the data that might have been available to the authors. The literature survey needs to be broadened and application of literature to the findings and discussion needs tightening. Following are my specific comments: What are the enrolment proportions and drop-outs in secondary and senior secondary school for the government classes and their performance at the national level? See MHRD report (ESAG). Literature survey: 1. Bourdieu’s theory of ‘cultural capital’ is useful here to explain differences in academic achievement based on socio-economic status. 2. Line: ‘Alternately, the associated socio-economic status may determine academic achievement, irrespective of caste/class affiliation.’ Please give an example/reference. 3. The authors might benefit from the following article that deals with the relationship between caste and academic performance in higher education in India: Namrata Gupta (2019) Intersectionality of gender and caste in academic performance: quantitative study of an elite Indian engineering institute, Gender, Technology and Development, 23:2, 165-186. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09718524.2019.1636568 4. Some of the references are not specific and does not lead the reader to the source. For instance: ‘India Go. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India 2018,Sep’. Which document are you referring to? 5. On Pg. 10: ‘Though Indian studies have examined self-esteem and life satisfaction in the context of educational outcomes, …’ What Indian studies are you referring to? Methodology: We need more information about schools. Are they government, private or mixed schools? What is their language of instruction? Were there any difficulties for the participants in filling up the questionnaire and how were they handled? For instance, was the assessment administered in English? If yes, could the students understand the language particularly in the self-esteem and life satisfaction scales? What is a z-score? Results: P. 14: ‘Predicted school performance values were 45.5 (±3.6), 49.1 (±3.3), and 51.4 (±3.3) for low, medium and high-class levels respectively, and were thus increasing with increasing levels of governmental class.’ Please specify if these are mean values taking all the schools together. Also in the column on AP, there does not seem to be a linear relationship between class categories and AP, since, SC/ST average is 44.5, OBC 43.0 and GC 53.8. Please explain. In Table 2, AP, SES and SWLS numbers for various categories are out of what? AP seems to be percentage, but the rest? P. 16: Line: ‘Also, an increase of family income may not necessarily correspond to better educational outcomes for the students of low social class. In other words, the educational disadvantage that we observe in our results in the lower governmental class, may not be equated with economic disadvantage.’ Please state the reason for this. P. 16: ‘In a study (40) conducted in the state of Haryana in which students from a socioeconomically advanced OBC subgroup were included, the academic performance of these OBC students was found to be on par with the General Class.’ This statement appears flawed as the Yadav and Chahal, the authors of the paper cited here state in their own paper: ‘The reserved categories include OBC’s which is socially backward but economically prosperous category.’ (p.36: Yadav and Chahal 2016). Hence, Yadav and Chahal seem to have studied OBCs that are socially backward and cannot be referred to as ‘socioeconomically advanced’. P. 14: Line: ‘In one school (KL2), academic performance was highest in the highest class (GC) and lowest in the lowest class (SC-ST) (p<.001) while in another school (KL3), academic performance also varied among classes, albeit being lowest for the medium class (OBC) (p=0.014). For the remaining four schools, no significant differences in academic performance among the three class levels were found…’ As your Table 1 shows, schools KL1 and MP2 have either a single or no SC/ST students. Hence the claim that: ‘ For the remaining four schools, no significant differences in academic performance among the three class levels were found…’ does not seem pertinent. Instead it will be better to show the relationship between caste and AP for GC and OBC for all the schools. The status of the OBCs in Kerala and MP should also be discussed and related to the findings. Discussion: Based on the literature, the authors might like to discuss as to why there is a relationship between government classes/caste and the AP. Line: ‘(11) observed that students from lower socioeconomic status are likely to have a positive influence...’ Do you mean to say ‘….likely to be positively influenced…’? Please replace (11) by the last name of the referred author. Line: ‘This would imply that the gap in academic performance between students from higher and lower governmental classes are likely to widen if students from the schools of the governmental sector and from the rural background are investigated.’ Because?? ********** 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 [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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-19-31769R1 Governmental Ranking of Class and Academic Performance of Indian Adolescents PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gaab, 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. Once again, I would like to thank you for your patience. Reviewer #2 suggests two minor points you might wish to consider in the discussion section. Once you address these two minor comments (or explain why not include them), I’ll be happy to recommend the paper for publication. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 12 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:
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, Tomáš Želinský, Ph.D. 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: 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: 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: In page 10, in the line "A multilevel model was then set up to assess the relation- ship between caste affiliation school performance for all six schools combined, once again controlling for the above mentioned five covariates.", there is a small error. I believe the correct way to write this sentence will be: A multilevel model was then set up to assess the relationship between caste affiliation `AND' school performance for all six schools combined, once again controlling for the above mentioned five covariates. Reviewer #2: A couple of points might be considered: 1. While there is a detailed discussion of results on academic performance and its relation to socio-economic status, there is no discussion on the two other measures, self-esteem (SES) and satisfaction with life (SWLS). How were these related to academic performance? Also, what were the gender differences in performance with respect to their caste? 2. The Discussion needs to engage with Bourdieu, that is, how far it affirms the theory of cultural/social capital. Some sentences need polishing to improve the readability of the paper. For instance: Line in Introduction: 'Based on the yearly report of Ministry of Human Resource Development (ESAG 2018), at Senior Secondary school, out of the 24.7 students who got enrolled, 5.9 were from the SC-ST category..." What are 24.7 and 5.9? percentages? The line in the Discussion 'Thus, the influence of social backwardness on education may be alleviated by better economic condition and worsened by economic backwardness.' is confusing. It might either be modified or deleted. The last line in the Discussion section: 'then it would imply that we may find a greater gap in academic performance if we include students from rural schools who are mostly from the lower classes and who are less likely to study with students of higher class'. This line is also not clear. "include" where? ********** 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: Anwesha Bandyopadhyay Reviewer #2: Yes: Namrata Gupta [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 2 |
|
Governmental Ranking of Class and Academic Performance of Indian Adolescents PONE-D-19-31769R2 Dear Dr. Gaab, 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, Tomáš Želinský, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Once again I would like to thank you for your patience and addressing reviewers' comments throughout the review process of your paper. Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-19-31769R2 The governmental ranking of class and the academic performance of Indian adolescents Dear Dr. Gaab: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Tomáš Želinský Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .