PONE-D-21-31646Variables appended to ABS frames: Has their data quality improved?PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Andrew Caporaso,

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, including the comment from Reviewer#2 about "plagiarism".

Please submit your revised manuscript by 12 January 2022. 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 labelled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labelled '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,

Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Commercial affiliation should be listed as competing interest.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please address all the comments (including that of Reviewr#2 about "plagiarism").

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: 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: Question 3 above befuddled me. The paper goes to great length to indicate that the proprietorial vendors of ABS frames do not always fully explain the nature and methods of their data, so it is not likely that this paper could make all underlying data fully available. But it seems that they have made everything available that was within their control.

This is a very useful study as far as it goes. My comments are in the nature of pushing the boundaries further. Being from overseas, I thought the authors might have helped the foreign readers to understand how the ABS might differ between US, UK, Canada, Australia, and European countries. I know that many Asian countries would struggle to attain the levels of coverage of the USPS.

Hispanic and non-Hispanic is a category I know from the US Census, but it wasn't clear why the vendors did not append questions on race.

The matching exercise in Table 2 is useful, but it is not clear how the "bar" of 90% operates for practical decisions. Is 88% that much different to 90% to be notionally pushed aside? How about 80%? It would be useful to have more discussion of the standards you are developing, and the interpretation of the predictivity.

In the concluding paragraph, this sentence stands out: "Future research should continue to monitor and document the availability and accuracy of different types of appended frame data." Availability is the key here. Can you give examples of what other variables should be brought forward? Race, for instance?

Reviewer #2: General:

• This study is useful for researchers who deal with quantitative survey data –

particularly on the survey sampling design, data analysis and the interpretation of

the findings.

• It presents the original research. However, there is a level of plagiarism (based on

the ‘Turn It In’, please see results in an attached file).

• Results reported have not been published elsewhere. Although, there are number of

similar published publications, especially the reference # 4 that the authors would

like to follow up with an improvement of the appended data over time (line 96).

• Mathematics formula and data analysis performed well in an appropriate manner,

but it need references for methods and formulas.

• Conclusions are clearly drawn from the results.

• The data analysis of this manuscript was based on the secondary survey data sets,

and appended data from a vendor. The research meets all applicable standards for

the ethnics of research integrity.

Specific:

• Introduction:

The rationale of this study should be strengthened, and research gaps should be

clearly identified. These would be aligned with objectives and methodology.

• Data and methods:

The authors end up with using three data sets (NHTS, HINTS, ACS), but under in Table

1, the authors provide 2 detail data sets, while the third dataset was not directly use

for data analysis was presented. Why did the authors give the NHES detail? Please

clarify.

• Availability and quality of appended demographic information:

o Please define ‘demographic information’ used in this study. Normally,

demographers define demographic variables as age, sex, ethnicity/race of the

population.

o Fig.1 and Fig.2, please label x-axis and y-axis.

o Lines 144-145: descriptive, please check its consistency with the figures in

Table 2.

• Efficiency of using appended demographic variables for oversampling

o “Oversampling” was not mentioned in the rationale- please add argument

why researcher should examine efficiency of using appended data for

oversampling.

o Table 3: please clarify why ’18-24 present’ was not highlighted in the table,

while its optimum oversampling rate =2.3 (above 2)

2

o Line 214; according to the results, please clarify why the household income is

the less promising variable.

o The American Community Survey (ACS), please clarify why didn’t the authors

mentioned it at the beginning (in the data and methods session).

o Suggest: that the authors add references for each formula, and show a

sample calculation e.g for the first figures in Tables 2 & 3.

• Discussion:

The authors should add work more on the strengthen and limitation of this study,

and how it support or contrast with the existing knowledge that was reviewed in the

introduction. At this stage, there is almost no discussion in this session.

• References:

Only 15 references were mentioned, while references related to methods and

calculation should be added

**********

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: Terence H. Hull

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Turnitin-result-PONE-D-21-31646_reviewer-SP.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comment PLOS ONE_ PONE-D-21-31646 - Sureeporn.pdf

Variables appended to ABS frames: Has their data quality improved?

PONE-D-21-31646R1

Dear Dr. Andrew Caporaso,

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,

Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: