Impact of different heat wave definitions on daily mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal

Mbaye Faye; Abdoulaye Dème; Abdou Kâ Diongue; Ibrahima Diouf

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249199

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 5, 2020
8 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Shamsuddin Shahid, Editor PONE-D-20-27586 Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mbaye, 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. Both the reviewers are in favour to publish the article. However, both of them asked for few revisions. Though both of them asked for minor revision, reviewer 2 seems critical on some issues. I also agree with reviewer 2 that the literature review is not complete. Besides, author should try to highlight the novelty of the study. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 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, Shamsuddin Shahid Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Both the reviewers are in favour to publish the article. However, both of them asked for few revisions. Though both of them asked for minor revision, reviewer 2 seems critical on some issues. I also agree with reviewer 2 that the literature review is not complete. Besides, author should try to highlight the novelty of the study. 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 Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This research was funded by ACASIS project (http://www.agence-nationalerecherche.fr/Projet-ANR-13-SENV-0007). Authors also thank Serge Janicot and Richard Lalou for useful discussions about climate health impacts and their support through ACASIS project." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 4.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 4.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: I Don't Know ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Review Report 1 for manuscript “PONE-D-20-27586” I have read this manuscript with great interest. The study tries to select the most suitable heat wave definition for Bandafassi, Senegal. I think this paper will please the readers of PLOS one. It used very simple methodologies. However, the discussion should be improved. It is more like a literature review. My recommendation is minor revision. Below are my comments. L17: please, replace “the best” by “the most suitable” and add “for Bandafassi” at the end of the objective. L26: What is CI? The reader don’t know yet its meaning yet. L31: What is “with 3-day”? Do you mean with 3-day duration? L37: remove “current” L41:43: please rewrite starting from “three heat waves …. Study periods”. The sentence is misleading. Also in line 43 and 44. I think it should be “A recent study…. summaries that the excess ….. during the three heat …… 2017) showed a 11% ….. increase in risk.” L60: start time and end time. L119: What do you refer to in this sentence? L135:136: move to statistical analysis L202: coma is missing “from figure 2, we “ Figure 2: It is better to re arrange the x-axis to incremental values and add these specific days as vertical lines (using abline in R). L215: Bold is not needed. Page 12: Please, divide into several paragraphs. L323: Is it the only reason? Is it or due to heat built-up in body? L344: correct to “3 days is the most suitable (OR most representative) definition” Good Luck Reviewer #2: The heat wave have highest morality rate in cities while this paper only explores the rural heat wave morality. The reason is that heat wave is amplified a lot when considering the cities. I suggest the results from the cities should also be considered. What was the base year the heat wave was defined? The heat wave is indeed defined by a temperature, but it does not mean that the threshold temperature should be percentage based. The question is why the percentage-based threshold was used, why not a specific temperature? Why only morality data was used why also use the morbidity data also? What is the correlation coefficient in figure 2? I think it will give some idea between the temperature and death perhaps? What is the novelty of the study? The literature is not complete. Please include the papers on heat wave definition, indices and what heat waves will be in the coming decades: -Trends in heat wave related indices in Pakistan -Prediction of heat waves in Pakistan using quantile regression forests -Spatial distribution of unidirectional trends in temperature and temperature extremes in Pakistan -Selection of GCMs for the projection of spatial distribution of heat waves in Pakistan ****** 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: Yes:** Mohamed Salem Nashwan 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249199.r001
Revision 1
4 Jan 2021 Author Response November, 2020 Re: Resubmission of “ Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal”, manuscript id: PONE-D-20-27586 Dear Editor : Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript titled “ Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal”. We appreciate the careful reviews and constructive suggestions by the reviewers. The manuscript has substantially improved after making the suggested amendments. In the following section, find a detailed point-by-point response in red to the reviewers and the editor’s concerns. Changes made in the manuscript are marked using track changes. The revision has been developed in consultation with all co-authors, and each author has given approval to the final draft. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mbaye Faye On behalf of the authors, Saint-Louis, Senegal Reponses to Editor’s comments Comment 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 Answer 1: We have updated and re-structured the text as required. The manuscript has been edited according to the above style guidelines to fit PLOS ONE's style requirements. Comment 2: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This research was funded by ACASIS project (http://www.agence-nationalerecherche.fr/Projet-ANR-13-SENV-0007). Authors also thank Serge Janicot and Richard Lalou for useful discussions about climate health impacts and their support through ACASIS project." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Answer 2: We have removed “This research was funded by ACASIS project (http://www.agence-nationalerecherche.fr/Projet-ANR-13-SENV-0007). Authors also thank Serge Janicot and Richard Lalou for useful discussions about climate health impacts and their support through ACASIS project” as suggested. Comment 3: Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Answer 3: Thank you for noting this. This is done in the study area subsection (L115). Comment 4: We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 4.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 4.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Answer 4: Thank you for your suggestion, we replace the previous figure by one that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Reponses to Reviewer #1 comments I have read this manuscript with great interest. The study tries to select the most suitable heat wave definition for Bandafassi, Senegal. I think this paper will please the readers of PLOS one. It used very simple methodologies. However, the discussion should be improved. It is more like a literature review. My recommendation is minor revision. Below are my comments. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. As the reviewer suggested, we have revised the discussion section in the update manuscript. We will improve our manuscript as the reviewer’s commented. For more detail, please refer to the responses below. Comment 1: L17: please, replace “the best” by “the most suitable” and add “for Bandafassi” at the end of the objective. L26: What is CI? The reader don’t know yet its meaning yet. Answer 1: As recommended by the reviewer, we have changed the word in the sentence from ‘‘best’’ by ‘‘most suitable’’ (L14) and we have added “for Bandafassi” (L16) at the end of the objective. Comment 2: L26: What is CI? The reader don’t know yet its meaning yet. Answer 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The CI means Confidence Interval. We have added it in the abstract section of update manuscript (L25). Comment 3: L31: What is “with 3-day”? Do you mean with 3-day duration? Answer 3: Yes, we did mean with 3-day duration. We have now added the word ‘‘duration’’(L30). Comment 4: L37: remove “current” Answer 4: We have removed “current” as suggested. Comment 5: L41:43: please rewrite starting from “three heat waves …. Study periods”. The sentence is misleading. Also in line 43 and 44. I think it should be “A recent study…. summaries that the excess ….. during the three heat …… 2017) showed a 11% ….. increase in risk.” Answer 5: We accepted the reviewer’s suggestion. We re-wrote the sentence so it starting from “three heat waves …. Study periods” (L43-45). The sentence “A recent study…. increase in risk” has been re-written in the update manuscript (L46-49). Comment 6: L60: start time and end time. Answer 6: It is corrected in the revised manuscript (L65). Comment 7: L119: What do you refer to in this sentence? Answer 7: We thank the reviewer for raising the issue, we have been expanded the description of the study area also including more information on its climate condition (for example also on the basis of the Köppen climate classification (Cornforth et al., 2019 [45])). Comment 8: L135:136: move to statistical analysis Answer 8: We agree with the reviewer’s point of view. We have moved this sentence at the end of statistical analysis subsection (L208-209). Comment 9: L202: coma is missing “from figure 2, we “ Answer 9: This is corrected (L222). Comment 10: Figure 2: It is better to re arrange the x-axis to incremental values and add these specific days as vertical lines (using abline in R). Answer 10: We appreciate this suggestion as it may help to better understand. However, we believe that for methodological consistence it is better to use the dates which major peaks were observed. Comment 11: L215: Bold is not needed. Answer 11: As recommended by reviewer, this has been changed in the manuscript (L235). Comment 12: Page 12: Please, divide into several paragraphs Answer 12: We have divided the discussion section into several paragraphs in the update manuscript. Comment 13: L323: Is it the only reason? Is it or due to heat built-up in body? Answer 13: We thank the reviewer for this observation. It is possible to have others reasons. It may be certainly true. As far as we know, the reason is that, possibly due to their greater physiological adaptation to high temperatures as showed in the manuscript. Comment 14: L344: correct to “3 days is the most suitable (OR most representative) definition” Answer 14: As recommended by reviewer, we have changed the word “best” with “most suitable” in the conclusions section (L391). Reponses to Reviewer #2 comments We thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript. The reviewer’s comment help to improve our paper. Please find below point-by-point a detailed reponse to comments as followed. Comment 1: The heat wave have highest morality rate in cities while this paper only explores the rural heat wave morality. The reason is that heat wave is amplified a lot when considering the cities. I suggest the results from the cities should also be considered. Answer 1: We appreciate this helpful comment. We agree with this point as showed in the literature review (e.g. Shafiei Shiva et al., 2018 [51]; Basara et al., 2010 [4]; Khan et al., 2019 [33]). The study location was limited to a single rural areas (Bandafassi). We have expanded it in the Data collection subsection. Therefore we will consider this idea of the reviewer as another future possibility. Comment 2: What was the base year the heat wave was defined? Answer 2: We thank the reviewer for raising the issue, the period 1973-2012 was the base year the heat wave. Comment 3: The heat wave is indeed defined by a temperature, but it does not mean that the threshold temperature should be percentage based. The question is why the percentage-based threshold was used, why not a specific temperature? Answer 3: We complety agree with the reviewer’s point of view that ‘‘the heat wave is indeed defined by a temperature’’. We found that the both daily minimum and maximum temperature is the most representative variable of daily mortality based the Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) (results not show in the manuscript). As highlighted by Chen et al. (2015) [53] heat waves are defined, in general, by temperature indicator, temperature threshold and heat wave duration. In our work, heat waves are defined by (1) both daily minimum and maximum as temperature indicator, (2) relative threshold (87th, 90th, 92th, 95th, 97th percentiles of temperature) as temperature threshold (3) and duration (≥2, ≥3 and ≥ 4) as heat wave duration. Comment 4: Why only morality data was used why also use the morbidity data also? Answer 4: We are grateful for this comment. We don’t study the morbidity because our database do not contain the morbidity data. Only daily mortality data are used in this study; see Materials and Methods section ‘‘Daily mortality count data were obtained from the Bandafassi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS)’’. Comment 5: What is the correlation coefficient in figure 2? I think it will give some idea between the temperature and death perhaps? Answer 5: We thank the reviewer for these questions. The relationship between the temperature and the number death were closely correlated because the value of correlation coefficient (0.80) is closely to 1. Comment 6: What is the novelty of the study? Answer 6: We thank the reviewer for raising the issue. As far as we know, it is the first study in Senegal. Poisson generalized additive model (GAM) is used to investigate the effect of heat wave on mortality and distributed lag non-linear model (DLNM) to evaluate the nonlinear association of heat wave definition at different lag days. Heat wave definition using 3 or more consecutive days with both daily minimum and maximum temperature greater than the 90th percentile shows the best model fit. More precisely, our original findings, crucial for climate services, researchers, clinicians, end-users and decision-makers are: we found that females and people aged ≥ 55 years old were at higher risks than males and other different age groups to heat wave related mortality for definition based on 90th temperature percentile with 3-day duration. These results are expected to be useful for decision makers who plan public health measures in Senegal and elsewhere. Climate parameters including temperatures and humidity could be used to forecast heat wave risks over our area study for early warning. Comment 7: The literature is not complete. Please include the papers on heat wave definition, indices and what heat waves will be in the coming decades: -Trends in heat wave related indices in Pakistan -Prediction of heat waves in Pakistan using quantile regression forests -Spatial distribution of unidirectional trends in temperature and temperature extremes in Pakistan -Selection of GCMs for the projection of spatial distribution of heat waves in Pakistan Answer 7: We appreciate the opportunity to include additional references. As suggested by the reviewer, we have included these relevant references in the revised manuscript. Paper#1: -Trends in heat wave related indices in Pakistan; we have added it to in introduction section (Page 3, Line 94-95) and References. [37] Khan N, Shahid S, Ismail T, Ahmed K, Nawaz N, (2018b) Trends in heat wave related indices in Pakistan. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A. doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1605-2. Paper#2: -Prediction of heat waves in Pakistan using quantile regression forests; we have added it to in introduction section (Page 2, Line 81-82; Page 3, Line 89 and Line 94-95) and References. [28] Khan N, Shahid S, Juneng L, Ahmed K, Ismail T et al. (2019) Prediction of heat waves in Pakistan using quantile regression forests. Atmos. Res. 221, 1–11. doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.01.024. Paper#3: -Spatial distribution of unidirectional trends in temperature and temperature extremes in Pakistan; we have added it to in introduction section (Page 2, Line 45-46), to in Heat wave definition subsection (Page 5, Line 160) and References. [8] Khan N, Shahid S, bin Ismail T, Wang, X.-J, (2018a). Spatial distribution of unidirectional trends in temperature and temperature extremes in Pakistan. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1–15. doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-2520-7. Paper#4: -Selection of GCMs for the projection of spatial distribution of heat waves in Pakistan ; we have added it to in introduction section (Page 3, Line 90 and Line 94-95) and References. [33] Khan N, Shahid S, Ahmad K, Wang X-J, (2019) Selection of GCMs for the projection of spatial distribution of heat waves in Pakistan. Atmospheric Research 233 (2020) 104688. doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104688. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249199.r002
25 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Shamsuddin Shahid, Editor PONE-D-20-27586R1 Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mbaye, 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 Mar 11 2021 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, Shamsuddin Shahid 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 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: I would like to thank the authors for their work in updating the manuscript "Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal" based on the 1st round of revision. I recommend minor revision for the 2nd round of the review. 1) L124-127: "The full name of the institutional ... this study.". I believe this is not a correct place for this statement. It should be moved to Acknowledgments. 2) Figure 2 doesn't look professional. I believe the author should correct the x-axis and make an incremental scale and then highlight the peak days by vertical lines. Also the x-axis label should be moved down and not overlap any other text. 3) I believe the author should consider English proofreading service for this manuscript to improve it. Thank you Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the comments that I made on their manuscript sufficiently. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript maybe sonsidered. ****** 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:** Mohamed Salem Nashwan 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249199.r003
Revision 2
25 Feb 2021 Author Response February, 2021 Re: Resubmission of “ Impact of Different Heat Wave Definitions on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal”, manuscript id: PONE-D-20-27586R1 Dear Editor : Thank you for the second round of reviewer’s comments and opportunity to revise our manuscript titled “ Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal”. We appreciate the careful reviews and constructive suggestions by the reviewers. The manuscript has substantially improved after making the suggested amendments. In the following section, find a detailed point-by-point response in red to the reviewers. Changes made in the manuscript are marked using track changes. The revision has been developed in consultation with all co-authors, and each author has given approval to the final version of the manuscript. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mbaye Faye On behalf of the authors, Saint-Louis, Senegal Reponses to Reviewer #1 comments I would like to thank the authors for their work in updating the manuscript "Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal" based on the 1st round of revision. I recommend minor revision for the 2nd round of the review. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments for the second round of the review. These comments will help us to improve the quality of the manuscript. For more detail, please refer to the responses below. Comment 1: L124-127: "The full name of the institutional ... this study.". I believe this is not a correct place for this statement. It should be moved to Acknowledgments. Answer 1: Thank you for noting this. However, during the 1st review process, the editor (Orsolya Voros) recommend that us to insert it into the beginning of the Methods section: ‘‘Please insert your ethics statement: ‘‘The full name of the institutional review board that approved our specific study is Bandafassi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS). We confirm that the Bandafassi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) approved this study.’’ into the beginning of the Methods section of your manuscript file.’’ However, we have reworded this text in the revised version of manuscript: ‘‘The full name of the institutional review board that reviewed our specific study approval is the Bandafassi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS). We confirm that this was approved.’’ Comment 2: Figure 2 doesn't look professional. I believe the author should correct the x-axis and make an incremental scale and then highlight the peak days by vertical lines. Also the x-axis label should be moved down and not overlap any other text. Answer 2: We thank the reviewer for raising the issue. As you suggested, we have now corrected the x-axis of Figure 2 in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: I believe the author should consider English proofreading service for this manuscript to improve it. Answer 3: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. An English proofreading service has been made for the revised manuscript as suggested. Reponses to Reviewer #2 comments The authors have addressed all the comments that I made on their manuscript sufficiently. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript maybe sonsidered. Thank you for the positive feedback. We appreciate this suggestion which help to improve the readability of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249199.r004
15 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Shamsuddin Shahid, Editor Impact of Different Heat Wave Definition on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal PONE-D-20-27586R2 Dear Dr. Mbaye, 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, Shamsuddin Shahid Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249199.r005
Formally Accepted
22 Mar 2021 Acceptance Letter - Shamsuddin Shahid, Editor PONE-D-20-27586R2 Impact of Different Heat Wave Definitions on Daily Mortality in Bandafassi, Senegal Dear Dr. Faye: 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. Shamsuddin Shahid Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249199.r006

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 .