PONE-D-22-05171Real-time racial discrimination, affective states, salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase in Black adultsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nam,

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 Jul 07 2022 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: 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,

Christopher D. Lynn, Ph.D.

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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I agree with the suggestions of the reviewers, though I consider all of them relatively minor and straightforward issues to address. Please address all reviewer comments in submitting revised manuscript.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: The manuscript by Nam and colleagues assesses the effects of racial discrimination on salivary stress responses and affective surveys in real-time. Few studies assess such measures in real-time. Much of the prior work in this area has been conducted retrospectively. The prior day’s self-reported microagressions correlated with cortisol at the time of wakening and the diurnal slope for the day, supporting the notion that concurrent salivary and survey assessment can be used to assess such measures in real-time. The use of the mEMA app is rigorous and several intriguing correlations are revealed. The within-subjects design is a theoretical improvement over past between-subjects designs. Some aspects should be improved prior to publication including the use of the term “dysregulation” which is sometimes used to describe typical HPA axis activation, clarity for the stated hypotheses, some amendments to chosen analyses/figures, and acknowledgement of additional limitations.

ABSTRACT

1. Beta weights and p values are given, however, these are not necessary or particularly descriptive. All p values are assumed to be significant. An r or R^2 would be easier to interpret.

INTRODUCTION

2. It is said that racial discrimination is found to dysregulate the ANS or HPA axis. However, is there evidence for “dysregulation” per se? Dysregulation typically implies a long-term disruption in the capacity for the HPA axis to sufficiently or appropriately activate and restore homeostasis (such as the loss of HPA activity in general adaptation syndrome wherein chronic activation blunts responsivity). It should be clarified that acute insults “activate” the HPA axis and evidence should be provided as to whether a lifetime of racial bias truly “dysregulates” the HPA axis.

3. The reasons for sAA to reflect ANS function should be described (i.e. parotid stimulation by locus coeruleus).

4. It is argued by authors that one of the reasons prior literature has not found a relationship between ANS or HPA axis biomarkers is that studies have been retrospective, thereby accounting for a lifetime of racial bias as opposed to real-time assessment. If it is the case that lifetime racial experiences do not predict ANS or HPA axis function, then this would seem to argue against a true “dysregulation” of the ANS and HPA axis in favor of more immediate changes that may be reversible. Authors should consider this in their interpretation.

5. Why was a blunted wakening cortisol response hypothesized when it has been previously observed that peer rejection increases wakening cortisol?

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

6. Fig. 1 needs to include a measure of variance for each timepoint

7. The correlation with sex is a confusing to interpret. Typically, discrete variables such as sex are not appropriate for continuous inferentials. Sex should really be assessed via t-test. It is suggested to remove the current correlations for this variable in favor of t-tests.

8. “Dysregulation” of the HPA axis is said to be associated with poor health outcomes, but again this wording should be justified.

9. It would be useful to include the “stress from daily hassles” in a supplement.

10. Authors should be careful not to over-interpret cortisol measures. For example, higher salary was associated with

11. Did authors consider that recording microaggressions might heighten awareness to them? Some reactivity to the recording process would be expected, perhaps increasing the HPA axis effect of microaggressions in the current study. This should be considered/discussed.

MINOR COMMENTS

1. Some grammatical errors are noted throughout the manuscript (e.g., inappropriate tense, missing articles such as “the” or “a”, etc). The manuscript should be carefully proofread prior to resubmission.

2. In Table 1, it should read equal to or greater than the top values for salary and BMI.

Reviewer #2: I’ve completed my review PONE-D-22-05171 “Real-time racial discrimination, affective states, salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase in Black adults”. The authors, using longitudinal data from 12 health Black adults, examined the association between racial discrimination and stress response system (cortisol and alpha amylase). The findings revealed that previous day racial discrimination was associated with cortisol; also, microaggressions was associated with cortisol during the same day. Although this study moves research on racial discrimination and objective measures of stress response forward, there is an issue of concern worth noting.

I would like for the authors to connect racism, specifically antiBlack racism, to discrimination. In the current form, discrimination can be reduced to a few “bad apples” instead of a larger system of racism, especially how discrimination and microaggression. For example, if racism conceptualized as both ideology (e.g., attitudes about race and racial inequality) and structure (e.g., laws, policies, etc.), then discrimination can be framed as part of the larger system of racism. This context should be made apparent in both the introduction and the discussion. To help the authors accomplish this goal, I recommend the following papers, especially the Golash-Boza paper:

Doane, A. (2017). Beyond color-blindness:(Re) theorizing racial ideology. Sociological Perspectives, 60(5), 975-991.

Golash-Boza, T. (2016). A critical and comprehensive sociological theory of race and racism. Sociology of race and ethnicity, 2(2), 129-141.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

Real-time racial discrimination, affective states, salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase in Black adults

PONE-D-22-05171R1

Dear Dr. Nam,

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,

Christopher D. Lynn, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addressing the requested revisions. I am now recommending your manuscript for publiciation.

Reviewers' comments: