Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale in Bangladesh

Muhammad Kamruzzaman Mozumder

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276837

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 29, 2021
29 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina, Editor PONE-D-21-21312Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale in BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mozumder, 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 Nov 13 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: 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, Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina, 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.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Authors: First of all, I am grateful for the opportunity to review your manuscript, which seems to me to be a good contribution to the cultural extension of psychometric tests, which is essential for the development of local research and, above all, to contribute to the development of psychology beyond the WEIRD countries. However, I have decided not to send this paper for review, as it has some important flaws that will surely be pointed out by the reviewers, and I am concerned that some of these issues may not be possible to address in the time they would have to do so, so I prefer to return the paper to you so that you can decide whether to make the changes suggested before the review or not to submit it to this journal. In general terms, it seems to me that the theoretical framework is adequately written, within what is to be expected for a psychometric article, although I believe that the arguments for the relevance of developing validity evidence for this population could be better developed. In addition, there is a lack of theoretical justification of the variables used for the evidence of validity in relation to other variables. In the methodological aspects, I suggest not using exploratory factor analysis, since there is a well-defined model and, in case it is performed, not using the principal components estimation method, since this estimation is not a factor estimation, since it corresponds to formative (not reflective) models. Another even more important weakness is to perform the exploratory and confirmatory analysis with the same sample, since it is redundant and any spurious structure would be confirmed by mere capitalization of chance (if this double process is done, different samples should be used), producing an overfitting. To avoid this, if sufficient sample size is not available, I suggest considering the application of ESEM, instead of EFA and CFA. All these aspects mentioned correspond to suggestions that, most probably, would be quickly noticed by the reviewers, but all of them can be corrected relatively easily. What concerns me, given that it requires extending and modifying the sampling, is the sample size, but, above all, the lack of representativeness of the sample, since it claims to refer to the general population, but includes almost a third of the LGBTQ population (with which a particular psychometric study has already been conducted), which is evidenced as a sample recycling that is not consistent with the aims of the study. Although in these disciplines it is very rare to have random samples, it is necessary to give some guarantees that the sample is reasonably close to the population in which the instrument is intended to be used, which is not met here, so it is necessary to conduct additional sampling in order to make the study feasible. Therefore, I have decided not to send the study for review, unless they complement the sample. Additionally, for the review of psychometric studies, it is required that they make the data available, even if they are only those referring to the items of the instruments (which would not interfere with other subsequent or parallel studies), so that the reviewers can review the adjustments of the measurement models if required. I wish you much success and hope that my comments can be of some use to you. Best regards. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.0276837.r001
Revision 1
23 Nov 2021 Author Response I have revised the document as per suggestion and have completed the journal requirements suggestion from you. Please find below the response to the additional comments. Additional Editor Comments: 1. In general terms, it seems to me that the theoretical framework is adequately written, within what is to be expected for a psychometric article, although I believe that the arguments for the relevance of developing validity evidence for this population could be better developed. In addition, there is a lack of theoretical justification of the variables used for the evidence of validity in relation to other variables. Response: Thank you for this comment. A new sentence added in introduction. Some details on the justification of the validation variables are included in the last paragraph of data analysis section. 2. In the methodological aspects, I suggest not using exploratory factor analysis, since there is a well-defined model and, in case it is performed, not using the principal components estimation method, since this estimation is not a factor estimation, since it corresponds to formative (not reflective) models. Another even more important weakness is to perform the exploratory and confirmatory analysis with the same sample, since it is redundant and any spurious structure would be confirmed by mere capitalization of chance (if this double process is done, different samples should be used), producing an overfitting. To avoid this, if sufficient sample size is not available, I suggest considering the application of ESEM, instead of EFA and CFA. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have removed the EFA part of analysis. I strongly agree that this is redundant for this context. 3. All these aspects mentioned correspond to suggestions that, most probably, would be quickly noticed by the reviewers, but all of them can be corrected relatively easily. What concerns me, given that it requires extending and modifying the sampling, is the sample size, but, above all, the lack of representativeness of the sample, since it claims to refer to the general population, but includes almost a third of the LGBTQ population (with which a particular psychometric study has already been conducted), which is evidenced as a sample recycling that is not consistent with the aims of the study. Although in these disciplines it is very rare to have random samples, it is necessary to give some guarantees that the sample is reasonably close to the population in which the instrument is intended to be used, which is not met here, so it is necessary to conduct additional sampling in order to make the study feasible. Therefore, I have decided not to send the study for review, unless they complement the sample. Response: Please note that ‘No data from LGBT population’ is used in this analysis. All the data are from general population. Part of the data was collected as comparison group for LGBT as no comparable normative data from general population was available at that time. Moreover, none of these data were published in any other articles. Therefore, observation regarding sample recycling is inaccurate. Slight modification of text is made in the method section to reduce confusion. I agree completely that this is not at all a complete representation of general population of the country. However, we try tried to get closer to that by collecting data from all the Eight divisions of Bangladesh. Achieving more that that would require huge resources reducing feasibility of the study. A sentence has been added to the conclusion section. 4. Additionally, for the review of psychometric studies, it is required that they make the data available, even if they are only those referring to the items of the instruments (which would not interfere with other subsequent or parallel studies), so that the reviewers can review the adjustments of the measurement models if required. Response: Thank you for making it clearer, now I have made the data publicly available. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editors Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276837.r002
7 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Katrien Janin, Editor PONE-D-21-21312R1Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale in BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mozumder, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer has raised a number of minor concerns that need attention. They request additional information and/ or rewording on methodological aspects of the study. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 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, Katrien Janin Staff 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 #1: (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 #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: It seems to me that the paper presented is generally well written and analyzes the psychometric properties of the scale in a sample of Bangladeshi people. However, there are some details that I think can be improved. I think it would be important to explain better, why theoretically what the PSS-10 measures should be related to what the GHQ-28 measures, so that the reader has more clarity regarding the nomological network around the PSS-10. Also, it would be advisable to include the operational definition of the factors represented by the PSS-10, in order to have a better understanding of the meaning of the results obtained. On the other hand, there are some assertions in the paper that could be misinterpreted. For example, in the instruments part it says "The SRQ-20 has been validated in several countries, including Bangladesh [25], and is widely used as a screening and research tool", this could lead to believe that "the tests are valid", however, as explained in more detail by the AERA, APA, & NCME (2014), the tests are not valid, but the use and interpretation of the scores could be or not. A little more precision is needed regarding the wording of the results obtained from Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. I recommend reading Cho and Kim (2015) or Hoekstra et al., (2018), where they explain some common errors in the interpretation of this coefficient. Finally, taking into consideration that Bangladesh is a country with more than 150 million inhabitants and that the presented study does not have randomized sampling, I recommend being more careful about generalizing the results. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educationaland psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. https://www.testingstandards.net/open-access-files.html Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994 Hoekstra, R., Vugteveen, J., Warrens, M. J., & Kruyen, P. M. (2019). An empirical analysis of alleged misunderstandings of coefficient alpha. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(4), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1547523 ****** 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 ******** [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.0276837.r003
Revision 2
4 Aug 2022 Author Response Responses to the Reviewer’s comments Thank you for reviewing this manuscript and making suggestion to improve the manuscript (PONE-D-21-21312R1; Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale in Bangladesh). Please find my responses after each of your suggestions (listed in numbers). 1. I think it would be important to explain better, why theoretically what the PSS-10 measures should be related to what the GHQ-28 measures, so that the reader has more clarity regarding the nomological network around the PSS-10. Response: Thank you for this suggestion, I have added a sentence in the manuscript to address this, “It may be noted here that the underlying focuses of the GHQ-28 are the appearance of distressing phenomenon and the inability to carry out normal functions, which logically are connected to the perception of stress measured by the PSS 10.” (line 151-153, page 8) 2. Also, it would be advisable to include the operational definition of the factors represented by the PSS-10, in order to have a better understanding of the meaning of the results obtained. Response: I agree that this would be useful however, I did not find any operational definition from the authors who first coined these two factors. 3. On the other hand, there are some assertions in the paper that could be misinterpreted. For example, in the instruments part it says "The SRQ-20 has been validated in several countries, including Bangladesh [25], and is widely used as a screening and research tool", this could lead to believe that "the tests are valid", however, as explained in more detail by the AERA, APA, & NCME (2014), the tests are not valid, but the use and interpretation of the scores could be or not. Response: This was a new insight for me, thank you for your comment. The sentence has now been revised to avoid the misinterpretations, “Validation studies on the SRQ-20 have been carried out in several countries, including Bangladesh”. (line 103-104, page 6) I have also revised another sentences based on this suggestion, “validation studies on the PSS have also been carried out in different subpopulations” (line 29-30, page 3) 4. A little more precision is needed regarding the wording of the results obtained from Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. I recommend reading Cho and Kim (2015) or Hoekstra et al., (2018), where they explain some common errors in the interpretation of this coefficient. Response: This is very useful suggestion. Thank you for the recommended articles, they explained much more details on the misinterpretations of Cronbach's Alpha. I have rephrased some sentences to avoid such misinterpretations. “The reported internal consistency of the scale indicated by Cronbach’s alpha ranged from.71 to .91” (line 83-84, page 5) “Cronbach’s alpha was used as an indicator for internal consistency of the scale. For the Bengali PSS-10 full scale alpha was .715” (line 180-181, page 9) The word “proved” has been replaced with “suggested”, “The findings suggested that the PSS-10 and its two factors are internally consistent” (line 231, page 12) 5. Finally, taking into consideration that Bangladesh is a country with more than 150 million inhabitants and that the presented study does not have randomized sampling, I recommend being more careful about generalizing the results. Response: Although a caution was reflected at the end of discussion (“Although the lack of randomization and the absence of data on the response rate raise concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings, the inclusion of countrywide participants with different socio-demographic characteristics makes the results useful.”; line 251-254, page 12) a new sentence has now been added in the conclusion section, “However, the result can never be generalized and caution should be taken before utilizing and interpreting scale scores from the general population based on current findings.” (line 264-266, page 13) Additionally, in the abstract the word “established” has been replaced with “suggest” in sentence “this study suggest the PSS-10 as a valid and reliable instrument“ (line 11-12, page 2) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276837.r004
17 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Jeffrey S. Hallam, Editor Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale in Bangladesh PONE-D-21-21312R2 Dear Dr. Mozumder, 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, Jeffrey S. Hallam, Ph.D., FRSPH 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 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 #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: 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: Yes 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: abstract need to be clear in terms of the main research questions. The author should rewrite the abstract section to support the study purposes with each hypothesis ideas and major finding clearly. Add more details in the limitation part. ****** 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: Yes: Reham Bakhsh ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: peer review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276837.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Jeffrey S. Hallam, Editor PONE-D-21-21312R2 Reliability and validity of the Perceived Stress Scale in Bangladesh Dear Dr. Mozumder: 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. Jeffrey S. Hallam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276837.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 .