https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-9966
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 6, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-31418 Prevalence of Tobacco Dependence and Associated Factors among Patients with Schizophrenia Attending Their Treatments at Southwest Ethiopia; Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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 Feb 22 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, Stanton A. Glantz 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. Please describe in your methods section how capacity to provide consent was determined for the participants in this study. Please also state whether your ethics committee or IRB approved this consent procedure. If you did not assess capacity to consent please briefly outline why this was not necessary in this case. 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of how participants were recruited, and c) descriptions of the specific locations where participants were recruited and where the research took place. 4. Please include additional information regarding the interviewer-administered structured questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 5. 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. 6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 7. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works. - https://moam.info/abstract-introduction-clinical-neuropsychiatry_5a856eba1723dd57bb3c06ad.html - https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jad/2018/8102165/ - https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/10/4790/htm - https://worldwidescience.org/topicpages/r/receiving+inpatient+psychiatric.html We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work. We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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: No ********** 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: Abstract In the first sentence the word ‘abused’ and ‘abuser’ is not right. There is no diagnostic criteria for tobacco abuse in DSM-5. The introduction part can be shortened. There are a lot of research findings from all the over the world. It should be summarized to the most relevant researches and high quality evidence. Materials and methods Please include a statement on the type of the study design. Please include some statements about the interviewer’s level of expertise. And the instrument that has been used to assess tobacco dependence (Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND)), was the instrument used in it’s original language or was it translated? If it was translated, please specify the process of translation of this or other instruments. Please put the reference paper which has validated the SDS instrument in Ethiopia. Result The 1st paragraph second sentence include the ‘mean age’. On the next sentences there are repetitions, please correct it. The last sentence the median (IQR) monthly income the IQR is not specified in a range of numbers. 2nd paragraph 3rd line include ‘family history’ Correlates of tobacco dependence among patients with schizophrenia On the bivariate logistic regression,-- it is univariable logistic regression There is inconsistency of the result from the table 3 and the above paragraph presented about the significant result on univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Discussion It needs further explanation on recommendation and the uniqueness of this study. Reviewer #2: This study addressed the frequency of ND in patents with schizophrenia in Ethiopia. While similar study has already been published (Molla et al, 2017), the question is whether this study brings new data. This text needs major revision, and English language revision. Introduction Page 9-The impact of smoking among schizophrenic patients, not only increases metabolism and vascular risks-what is meant by „metabolism “? It decreases the antipsychotic therapeutic effects as smoking induces the medication metabolism in the liver reducing up to 48% the active metabolites in serum (9). -please, be more specific-because smoking does not induce the metabolism of all antipsychotics One hospital based cross sectional study done among 429 inpatients schizophrenic patients in China receive antipsychotic mono-therapy found that the prevalence rate of current smoking was 40.6%and 57.5% in males and 6.3% in females. -please, put the reference number in the parenthesis, and correct English grammar A cross sectional study done in Singapore among male schizophrenic patients found that the lifetime prevalence and current smoker are 54.1%and 42.4%respectively (15). -life time prevalence of what? Methods How was schizophrenia confirmed? According to which classification system? It is unclear whether the patients were in-or out-patients or both. Exclusion criteria-„patients who are seriously ill “-please define what this term refers to Operational definitions: Chronic illness: past mental illness...how could past mental illnesses be defined, when participants already have schizophrenia? The study lacks any measure of schizophrenia psychopathology (such as PANSS) What about pharmacotherapy? Did patients receive antipsychotics? Results The mean (±SD) of the study participants were 33.7(±7.9) years-the term „age “is missing 66.2% were males-was mentioned twice The section: „ Prevalence of tobacco dependence among patients with schizophrenia “is unclear and difficult to read. How many patients were current smokers? The data providing number (frequency) of smokers, and categories of FTND-defined nicotine dependence, need to be presented in a separate table „Few of them had history of mental illness (15.7%)-it is unclear, because all patients had schizophrenia Discussion Please, provide in the discussion the rates of nicotine dependence in Ethiopia general population, and then comment on the ND rate in schizophrenia patients, whether and how it differs compared to general population in the same country. Limitations The lack of any scale measuring current psychopathology is also a limitation. The conclusion „a significant proportion of tobacco dependence...“ would be valid only if this ND frequency outnumbers smoking prevalence in Ethiopia general population. ********** 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 |
|
PONE-D-20-31418R1 Prevalence of Tobacco Dependence and Associated Factors among Patients with Schizophrenia Attending Their Treatments at Southwest Ethiopia ; Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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. There are still serious problems with the English. It is important that you have the manuscript edited by a native English speaker before you submit a revised manuscript in addition to carefully addressing the reviewers' technical comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 17 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ********** 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: Prevalence of Tobacco Dependence and Associated Factors among Patients with Schizophrenia Attending Their Treatments at Southwest Ethiopia ; Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract In the first sentence the word ‘abused’ and ‘abuser’ is not right. There is no criteria for tobacco abuse in DSM-5. Authors’ response: Accepted and replaced the word ‘abused’ and ‘abuser’ with the word ‘used’ and ‘user’ respectively. Re-reviewer response -Even though the word is changed the sentence is not written in a correct English grammar. Result section of the abstract - Concerning the severity of tobacco dependence, 3.5%, 13.8% and 5% of the respondents report high and very high level of tobacco dependence respectively [ this sentence is not correct, misses the word moderate]. 2. The introduction part can be shortened. There are a lot of research findings from all the over the world. It should be summarized to the most relevant researches and high quality evidence. Authors’ response: we accepted the comments and we have shortened the introduction. Re-reviewer response – accepted 3. Materials and methods Please include a statement on the type of the study design. Authors’ response: Study design was included in the manuscript Re-reviewers response – accepted 4. Please include some statements about the interviewer’s level of expertise. Authors’ response: we have included the statements about the interviewer’s level of expertise under ‘data collection procedures and tools’ subtitle of methods section. Re-reviewers response – accepted 5. And the instrument that has been used to assess tobacco dependence (Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND)), was the instrument used in it’s original language or was it translated? Authors’ response: we used the translated instrument Re-reviewers response – accepted 6. If it was translated, please specify the process of translation of this or other instruments. Authors’ response: the process of translation was described under ‘data quality control’ subtitle of methods section Re-reviewers response – accepted 7. Please put the reference paper which has validated the SDS instrument in Ethiopia. Authors’ response: Can be added, because it was validated at Mizan, Ethiopia. Re-reviewers response – if the validation paper was not published in peer reviewed journal, you cannot say that it was validated 8. Result The 1st paragraph second sentence include the ‘mean age’. Authors’ response: we have included Re-reviewers response – accepted 9. On the next sentences there are repetitions, please correct it. Authors’ response: we have omitted the repeated sentences Re-reviewers response – accepted 10. The last sentence the median (IQR) monthly income the IQR is not specified in a range of numbers. Authors’ response: we accept the comment and corrected accordingly ‘‘the median monthly income of the respondents were 700ETB, which ranges from 100-5000ETB and the interquartile range is 1000.’’ Re-reviewers response – this is still not correct. IQR should be in a range 11. On the bivariate logistic regression,-- it is univariable logistic regression. There is inconsistency of the result from the table 3 and the above paragraph presented about the significant result on univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Authors’ response: In our analysis part, for univariable analysis we have used a P –value of 0.25 or less as inclusion criteria for the final model so as not to miss important clinical variables. Accordingly male gender, unemployment, being on treatment for 5years, having a history of admission and frequent admission, presence of physical illness, family history of mental illness and being educated above secondary school. However, for the gender, we mistakenly stated and admit to edit to male. Re-reviewers response – on the paragraph it is still not edited. Table 4 is not written in a consistent manner. For example the ref. value is sometime on the first row and sometimes on the second row. The analysis you have done is not correlation therefore you should not use the words like “correlations”. 12. Discussion It needs further explanation on recommendation and the uniqueness of this study. Authors’ response: we accept and addressed it Re-reviewers response – not addressed. On the 4th paragraph 3rd line it says “The notion was indicating the role of genetic factors and nicotine dependence in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia” this needs further explanation. Are you saying that nicotine dependence is causing schizophrenia? On the conclusion part it says female gender is associated with tobacco dependence and it should male gender. In general the whole text needs English language revision. The whole manuscript is written in mundane fashion it should be written in attractive way to the readers. Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all comments, but there are still some issues in the text that must be improved Abstract, Background: „Tobacco smoking is that the most typically employed in patients with mental disorders; among them, patients with schizophrenia area unit the very best users...“ This text is not clear, please, change Abstract, results: Concerning the severity of tobacco dependence, 3.5%, 13.8% and 5% of the respondents report high and very high level of tobacco dependence respectively-all three percentages need description., i.e., to which two of the three mentioned percentages do belong high and very high level of ND? Results The mean age (±SD) of the study participants were 33.7(±7.9) year age..-please, delete „age“ at the end of the sentence Table 3. Please, explain what is „frequency“ and „percentage“. Does the „frequency“ actually refer to absolute numbers? While male gender was associated with tobacco dependence in univariable logistic regression, female gender was associated with tobacco dependence in the final regression analysis. It is difficult to understand, so, please, explain this finding, and mention this also in the discussion. Discussion „The results were also higher compared to the finding of the study from Nigeria (20.4)“-percent? References References are not complete. Please, check and correct carefully all references. For example, reference No 10 is lacking five additional authors, and the journal name. References 11 and 12 look very much alike, while the No 12 has no journal name ********** 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: 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 2 |
|
PONE-D-20-31418R2Prevalence of Tobacco Dependence and Associated Factors among Patients with Schizophrenia Attending Their Treatments at Southwest Ethiopia ; Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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 reviewer again addressed several minor concerns about your manuscript. Please revise your manuscript carefully. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kenji Hashimoto, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 #2: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: Authors have addressed the comments However, there are some additional remarks: In tables 1, 2 and 3, frequency should be replaced with numbers References should all be edited in a uniform way, strictly according to the journal policy. For example, references no 5,6,8,9, 13,14,15,16,19, etc, have no journal name. Reference no 10 has full author first names, some references have name of the month, for example the ref no 20, which is missing journal volume and pages. Please, correct all references! English grammar has to be checked and corrected ********** 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 #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 3 |
|
Prevalence of Tobacco Dependence and Associated Factors among Patients with Schizophrenia Attending Their Treatments at Southwest Ethiopia ; Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study PONE-D-20-31418R3 Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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, Kenji Hashimoto, PhD Section 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 #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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: References are again not presented in a uniform way. For example, some do mention the month, such as: Schizophrenia research. 2005 Jul 15;76(2-3):135-57., while others don't, for example: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:1535–43. ********** 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 #2: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-31418R3 Prevalence of tobacco dependence and associated factors among patients with schizophrenia attending their treatments at southwest Ethiopia; Hospital-based cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Desalegn: 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 Prof. Kenji Hashimoto Section 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 .