Peer Review History
Original SubmissionOctober 11, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-31970 “Know your epidemic, know your response”: Epidemiological assessment of the substance use disorder crisis in the United States PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cuadros, 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 18 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:
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, Arsham Alamian, PhD, MSc, FACE 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 2) You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an "Other" file. 3) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: “Know your epidemic, know your response”: Epidemiological assessment of the substance use disorder crisis in the United States This manuscript describes the substance use disorder epidemic that is currently occurring in the United States. Although SUD is occurring at very high rates, not enough information is known about the demographics or socioeconomic factors related to individuals using substances. This study used data obtained from the CDC from 2005-2017 to examine characteristics of SUD. Findings were that White males consistently had highest SUD mortality rate from 2005-2017. There was a surge of increase in mortality in Black males from 2014-2017. SUD clustering showed there were more clusters in the west and Midwest. The researchers also found that having mental health distress or conditions significantly increased the relative risk of acquiring SUD. Overall, this is a very interesting manuscript that contributes to the scientific literature. However, the writing could be more clear at times. Suggestions for improvement are provided below: Abstract: 1. For this sentence in the conclusion “we found that this sad epidemic in the U.S. is characterized by…” I got confused with “sad” standing for substance abuse disorder – perhaps change to SUD or rephrase 2. For the first sentence in the results section, consider spelling out “U.S.” to United States so it is more clear that the next sentence begins with “white”, otherwise this appears to be a run on sentence. Introduction: 1. Regarding the definition of SUD, the manuscript states that the person that engages in the behavior has knowledge of the harmful consequences of engaging in excessive substance use. However, how is this measured and how do we know the individual is aware of the harm? In the research methods section the data collected is about substance use and behavior, not knowledge of the behavior. 2. End of page 3, states that “know your epidemic, know your response” framework shifted from coercive strategies to targeted prevention strategies. What does this mean? How were they coercive before, how did the shift occur to targeted prevention, and clarify what this means? Methods: 1. Page 5, second to last paragraph, last sentence should be “publicly” (not publicity) 2. The statistical methods seem to be adequately explained and appropriately applied to the data set. Results: 1. Page 7, paragraph 1 – for the sentence that says mortality in Black males has risen sharply since 2014, 40.00 SUD-related deaths per 1,000 total deaths is listed, however I would like to see a comparison number for white males. 2. Page 7 – table 1, figure 1 and figure 2 use the terminology substance abuse disorder (SAD) while the rest of the manuscript has been using substance use disorder (SUD) – clarification is needed here 3. Page 8, paragraph 1 – states that there is no statistical difference in population odds of SUD-related death for males and females, this needs clarification as males suffer from disproportionately high SUD and have shown highest mortality 2005-2017 stated multiple places elsewhere. Discussion: 1. Middle paragraph on page 11 – the description of the epidemic in the southern Pacific/mountain region is a little unclear to me. 2-3 more sentences of elaboration would be helpful to contrast with the epidemic occurring in the Midwest and other regions. 2. Appropriate limitations are mentioned. Figures: 1. Figure 2 – description of the figure and short analysis contrasting A and B would be helpful/useful 2. Figure 4 – B – clarify ‘intentional’ substance use disorders Recommendation: Accept subject to revision Reviewer #2: Re: PONE-D-20-31970 Diego Cuadros “Know your epidemic, know your response”: Epidemiological assessment of the substance use disorder crisis in the United States 1. Topic of considerable interest given Case and Deaton’s PNAS paper and book on “Deaths of Despair” and the noted increased mortality due to suicide, overdose, accidents in select groups in the last 5-8 years. 2. The authors identify areas in the U.S. with increase deaths by SUD using CDC data 2005-2017. 3. Methodology excellent 4. Results Increase of death due to SUD Males White with a sharp increase in Blacks since 2014 Increase 25-29, higher education (Did they look at college/no college, single, divorced, poverty, physical illness?) Certain States, Mid-West followed by Southern Pacific, Mountain States, and North East States showed increase. The opportunity to check out the Case and Deaton findings on education is partially lost by the absence of 2.18% of the data on education. The figures are presented for primary/secondary/college level. Can the authors look further at college graduate vs. others? ********** 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.] 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 1 |
“Know your epidemic, know your response”: Epidemiological assessment of the substance use disorder crisis in the United States PONE-D-20-31970R1 Dear Dr. Cuadros, 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, Arsham Alamian, PhD, MSc, FACE 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 ********** 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 ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ********** 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 ********** 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 version of the manuscript is much better. I believe both my comments and the other reviewer's comments appear to be addressed. Good detail that elaborates on the differing epidemics in South vs Midwest, helpful clarification was provided regarding statistical analysis as well. Overall good job. I feel that this manuscript needs no further revision at this point. ********** 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: Kathryn Gerber |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-31970R1 “Know your epidemic, know your response”: Epidemiological assessment of the substance use disorder crisis in the United States Dear Dr. Cuadros: 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. Arsham Alamian 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 .