Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria

Adeniyi Francis Fagbamigbe; Mary Obiyan; Olufunmilayo I. Fawole

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277844

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 18, 2022
30 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Jong In Kim, Editor PONE-D-22-01702Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria: Application of Generalized gamma survival modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fagbamigbe, 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 May 09 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, Jong In Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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.Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: This research was supported by the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA). CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Research Center and the University of the Witwatersrand and funded by the Wellcome Trust (UK) (Grant No: 087547/Z/08/Z), the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Grant No--B 8606.R02), Sida (Grant No:54100029)”. CARTA had trained the first author in research methodologies. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.) Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding 4 section. 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. 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: This paper assessed the timing of pubarche among adolescents and young adults in Nigeria and identified prognostic factors of the timing by obtaining information on youths' sexual and reproductive developments in a population survey among in-school and out-of-school youths aged 15 to 24 years in Nigeria. A total of 1174 boys and 1004 girls provided valid information on pubarche. Please supplement the following. 1. Supplement the theoretical aspects of the discussion. 2. Present the overall frame graphic. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0277844.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2022 Author Response Respected Editor, Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise manuscript entitled “Timing and Prognostic Factors of Pubarche in Nigeria: Parametric Survival Analysis”. The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the abstract and other aspects of the paper. I hereby include the reviewer comments below and provided a point-by-point to all the comments of the Editor and the reviewers The revisions were approved by all the authors. The manuscript has been scrutinized for requirement in the author instructions, as well. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit the Journal. Thank you Adeniyi Fagbamigbe Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 Thank you. We have corrected all the requirements 2.Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: This research was supported by the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA). CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Research Center and the University of the Witwatersrand and funded by the Wellcome Trust (UK) (Grant No: 087547/Z/08/Z), the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Grant No--B 8606.R02), Sida (Grant No:54100029)”. CARTA had trained the first author in research methodologies. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.) Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Thank you. We have revised the statements L456. It was a support not funding per sai 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding 4 section. Thank you. We have revised the statements 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Thank you. We have revised the statements L456- 465 5. 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. Thank you. We have revised the references and updated the links. We used the Mendeley software. All our references were cited and listed at the end. We retracted (CIA World Factbook, 2017) Ref 29 because same information was in reference 30 Additional Editor Comments: This paper assessed the timing of pubarche among adolescents and young adults in Nigeria and identified prognostic factors of the timing by obtaining information on youths' sexual and reproductive developments in a population survey among in-school and out-of-school youths aged 15 to 24 years in Nigeria. A total of 1174 boys and 1004 girls provided valid information on pubarche. Please supplement the following. Thank you 1. Supplement the theoretical aspects of the discussion. We have supplemented the theoretical aspects viz-a-viz our findings. Kindly see L403-L411 2. Present the overall frame graphic. We have provided the overall frame graphic L95-L98 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Pubarche Plos 1 rebutal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r002
22 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor PONE-D-22-01702R1Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria: Application of Generalized gamma survival modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fagbamigbe, 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. Two reviewers have analyzed the manuscript. Reviewer 2, in particular, notes issues that require clarification / action regarding the methodology, the statistical analysis and the reporting. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 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, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. 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: 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: No ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 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: All are included in the comment. The authors did a rigorous analysis which is relevant to the objective of the study. Reviewer #2: 1. It may be more appropriate to put the study design in the title rather than the statistical technique used. 2. Abstract, “median survival time to pubarche …” is misleading and better remove the word ‘survival’. It’s time-to-event analysis not necessarily survival. 3. Abstract, “Every additional one-year increase in the ages of both males and females reduces the risk of pubarche by 1%”, this statement is not clear to me. I thought pubarche is attainment of pubic hair. So, increasing age the risk of pubarche should increase, not decrease. That’s also their finding in this study. 4. Abstract, conclusion: the authors conclude that pubarche time varied significantly by region, ethnicity, and location of residence. However, such information was not provided at all in the results section of the abstract. The conclusion in the abstract should reflect only the results given in the abstract. 5. The conclusion that girls attain pubarche before boys is more or less an established fact. Rather, it would be more interesting if the authors found that the median age for pubarche among their study population is significantly different from the expected ranges as their hypothesis was “the timing of pubarche in Nigeria differs from other countries” (stated in the abstract). There appears marked discrepancy between the study question and answer to the question. 6. Introduction, “Besides, the available ones are dated”. What does this statement mean? it’s not clear to me. 7. Study design: my understanding is that the authors took a random sample of the population and conducted a survey. I didn’t understand how this could be labeled retrospective study unless I am missing something. This rather looks like a cross-sectional survey with a prospective data collection. If the data collection was from already stored data sources and the authors didn’t survey the study participants, this needs to be clearly stated. 8. The authors used multi-stage cluster sampling which is different from simple random sampling. Multi-stage cluster sampling requires correction for the design effect (the ratio of the variance from the cluster sampling to that expected from simple random sampling). This wasn’t the case in their study. Furthermore, they calculated and surveyed 2952 subjects but the data presented was only for 2178 participants. They excluded 774 participants which underpowers the study. As this was a cross-sectional study, I wonder why the authors didn’t continue to interview participants until their sample size was achieved to replace those who were excluded. 9. The statistical analysis section is extremely redundant but yet incomplete. The paper is about time-to-pubarche and not review of the statistical technique itself. They don’t need to discuss the survival function and hazard function in such detail; it’s enough if they just state these were the methods used to analyze the data. Trying to give unnecessary details, they have missed mentioning other simple statistical methods used in their study. 10. The authors mention that there was a delay in pubarche among older males and females. Could this be simple recall bias as the older ones are years away from the age of pubarche at the time of the interview? 11. Recommendation section: the authors recommend regular, repetitive, and comprehensive school-based sexuality education. Conclusions and recommendations should be based on the results of the study. ****** 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: Endale Tefera ******** [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: Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r003
Revision 2
2 Oct 2022 Author Response Dear Editor. We appreciate your efforts and our eminent reviewers. We have now completed the revision and provided point-by-point response. Thank you Reviewer 1 Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria: Generalized gamma survival model Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript with the above title. The paper is well written. There are a few things that need to be addressed. My concerns are written in green. Abstract Paucity of data exists on the timing of puberty, particularly the pubarche, in developing countries, which has hitherto limited the knowledge of the timing of pubarche, and assistance offered by physicians to anxious young people in Nigeria. I think paucity THIS IS NOT CLEAR- YOU THINK PAUCITY? We hypothesized that the timing of pubarche in Nigeria differs from other countries. It appears that there is a comparative study between Nigeria and other developing countries. It is better to hypothesize within the geographical divides in Nigeria. Remove other countries. Also, the first sentence should focus on Nigeria. THANK YOU, WE HAVE CHANGED THIS Our findings will aid medical practitioners in providing appropriate advice and support on pubarche-related issues among adolescents in Nigeria. One would like to see how the evidence of pubarche anxiousness in relation to request for medical assistance. THANK YOU, WE HAVE ADDED THIS Introduction The need to update knowledge and to inform surrounding adults to ease anxieties that often comes with the unpredictability of age at pubarche necessitated this study. Is there evidence of the needs and anxieties with regard to pubarche? THANK YOU, WE PROVIDED REFERENCES 1& 5 The knowledge of risk factors associated with pubarche could help medical practitioners provide evidence-based care and guidance to adolescents and their guardians. I expected to see evidence of seeking medical assistance in relation to pubarche issues. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON’T HAVE A JOURNAL REPORTING THESE, HOWEVER, IT REMAINS AN UNPUBLISHED ISSUE We hypothesized that better educational attainment could improve decisions on healthy food that may, in turn, affect the onset of pubarche; pubertal timing has been demonstrated to be a function of nutritional intake during childhood. The association between place of residence and timing of pubarche can be explained by the differentials in nutritional intake in rural and urban areas. Also, an Indian study reported rural-urban differences in age at pubarche 23. Can the authors elaborate on this study? Was nutrition implicated? YES TO AN EXTENT, WE CITED REFERENCE 15 AS SHOWN BELOW “NUTRITIONAL INTAKES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO BE DIFFERENT AMONG RURAL AND URBAN CHILDREN, SINCE BOTH HAVE DIFFERENTIAL ACCESS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOODS 15.” Race and ethnicity have been identified as associated factors with age at pubarche 24. This was ascribed to differences in the levels of metabolism and insulin across different races. This does not seem to be complete. THANK YOU, WE HAVE MADE SENSE OUT OF THE SENTENCE Thus, we hypothesized that the timing of pubarche in Nigeria differs from other countries and that age of pubarche in the country has changed over time compared with what is available in literature. Can this hypothesis be based on what is found in Nigeria? Mentioning other countries that are not part of the study will make testing the hypothesis impossible. WE TOTALLY AGREE. THIS HAS BEEN CORRECTED Significance of the study Recent reports showed that the lack of information on puberty is detrimental to the reproductive health of the youths. Where is the evidence of this? WE HAVE PROVIDED REFERENCE NUMBER 4 Many adolescents transition to adulthood without correct and adequate information on what puberty entails and how it affects their social and cognitive behaviours. This does not seem to belong here. THANK YOU. WE HAVE MOVED IT TO Methods: This section is acceptable Study Design The study design was a retrospective nationally representative population survey. What is the name of the survey and the year it was conducted? Thank you. We have provided this as The data used for this analysis was collected during the “Youths and adolescents sexual and reproductive health survey” in 2017. Line 54-56: Although different studies have estimated the timing of pubarche and identified its associated risk factors in most regions of the world 6–10, such studies are scarce for the Nigeria setting. Besides, the available ones are dated 11,12. Do you mean it is outdated? YES WE HAVE CORRECTED THIS The Theoretical / Conceptual Framework is appropriate and well-articulated. The analysis is very informative and well done. THANK YOU Discussion We used survival analysis technique to provide updated information on the incidence and timing of puberty among male and female adolescents in Nigeria. This is for the methodology section. It seems that results are being repeated in the discussion. NOT REALY, WE ONLY USED THAT SENETENCE AS INTRODUCTION TO REFRESH THE READERS Reviewer #1: All are included in the comment. The authors did a rigorous analysis which is relevant to the objective of the study. THANK YOU. Reviewer #2: Reviewer #2: 1. It may be more appropriate to put the study design in the title rather than the statistical technique used. THANK YOU. WE HAVE CORRECTED THIS 2. Abstract, “median survival time to pubarche …” is misleading and better remove the word ‘survival’. It’s time-to-event analysis not necessarily survival. THANK YOU. WE HAVE CORRECTED THIS 3. Abstract, “Every additional one-year increase in the ages of both males and females reduces the risk of pubarche by 1%”, this statement is not clear to me. I thought pubarche is attainment of pubic hair. So, increasing age the risk of pubarche should increase, not decrease. That’s also their finding in this study. THANK YOU. WE HAVE CORRECTED THIS The statement read “Every additional one-year in the ages of both males and females increases the risk of pubarche by 1%.” 4. Abstract, conclusion: the authors conclude that pubarche time varied significantly by region, ethnicity, and location of residence. However, such information was not provided at all in the results section of the abstract. The conclusion in the abstract should reflect only the results given in the abstract. THANK YOU. WE AGREED TOTALLY AND HAVE PROVIDE SOME OF THESE BUT WE ARE LIMITED BY SPACE. 5. The conclusion that girls attain pubarche before boys is more or less an established fact. Rather, it would be more interesting if the authors found that the median age for pubarche among their study population is significantly different from the expected ranges as their hypothesis was “the timing of pubarche in Nigeria differs from other countries” (stated in the abstract). There appears marked discrepancy between the study question and answer to the question. THANK YOU. THE OTHER REVIEWERS HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE CHANGE THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO “We hypothesized that the timing of pubarche in Nigeria differs by geographical regions and other characteristics”, which we obliged. Nonetheless, we have compared our findings with available data elsewhere in the discussions. 6. Introduction, “Besides, the available ones are dated”. What does this statement mean? it’s not clear to me. THANK YOU, IT IS “outdated” YES WE HAVE CORRECTED THIS 7. Study design: my understanding is that the authors took a random sample of the population and conducted a survey. I didn’t understand how this could be labeled retrospective study unless I am missing something. This rather looks like a cross-sectional survey with a prospective data collection. If the data collection was from already stored data sources and the authors didn’t survey the study participants, this needs to be clearly stated. THANK YOU. IT WAS CROSS-SECTIONAL. WE USED THE TERM RETROSZPECTIVE TO INDICTE THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD TO LOOK BACK INTO PAST EVENTS. A TIME TO EVENT DATA COULD EITHER BE RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE. OURS IS RETROSPECTIVE. WE HAVE REMOVED THE TERM RETROSPECTIVE SO AS IT AVOID CONFUSION. 8. The authors used multi-stage cluster sampling which is different from simple random sampling. Multi-stage cluster sampling requires correction for the design effect (the ratio of the variance from the cluster sampling to that expected from simple random sampling). This wasn’t the case in their study. Furthermore, they calculated and surveyed 2952 subjects but the data presented was only for 2178 participants. They excluded 774 participants which underpowers the study. As this was a cross-sectional study, I wonder why the authors didn’t continue to interview participants until their sample size was achieved to replace those who were excluded. MANY THANKS FOR THIS COMMENT. THE EXPECTED SAMPLE SIZE FOR SIMPLE RANDOM SAMPLING WAS 328 AFTER PROVISION FOR 10% NON-RESPONSE. WE APPLIED A DESIGN EFFECT OF 1.5 BEEN A CLUSTER SAMPLING TO ARRIVE AT 492 FOR EACH OF THE SIX ZONES (4926=2952). THIS PAPER IS A PART OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE SURVEY, WHEREIN INVALID RESPONSES FOR AGE AT PUBARCHES FOR THIS MANUSCRIPT WERE ONLY DETECTED AT ANALYSIS LEVEL. DESPITE THIS, THE POWER WAS 0.9875 (98.8%) WHICH WAS CLEARLY ABOVE THE NORMAL THRESHOLD OF 80% 9. The statistical analysis section is extremely redundant but yet incomplete. The paper is about time-to-pubarche and not review of the statistical technique itself. They don’t need to discuss the survival function and hazard function in such detail; it’s enough if they just state these were the methods used to analyze the data. Trying to give unnecessary details, they have missed mentioning other simple statistical methods used in their study. WE HAVE REMOVED REDUNDANCY BUT RETAINED JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF GAMMA MODELS. THE OTHER STATISTICAL METHODS WERE MENTIONED IN THE PARAGRAPH BEFORE “ANALYSIS OF TIME TO EVENT” 10. The authors mention that there was a delay in pubarche among older males and females. Could this be simple recall bias as the older ones are years away from the age of pubarche at the time of the interview? THANK YOU, RECALL BIAS CANNOT BE RULED OUT DESPITE EFFORTS TO MINIMISE THIS AT DATA COLLECTION STAGE. WE HAVE STATED THIS AS A STUDY LIMITATION 11. Recommendation section: the authors recommend regular, repetitive, and comprehensive school-based sexuality education. Conclusions and recommendations should be based on the results of the study. THANK YOU, WE HAVE REMOVED THIS Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response Puberche Plos ONe R2.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r004
25 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor PONE-D-22-01702R2Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in NigeriaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fagbamigbe, 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. Reviewer 1 was satisfied with the previous version and reviewer 2 feels that their comments have been addressed in this revision. My main concern is with the data availability. You are saying that the data is available without restrictions but it is not included with the manuscript and there is no link provided to the data location. Also, a google search for the name of the survey did not provide any meaningful link. If you were not involved in data production, it would also help if you provide cite/link to published materials (eg, survey report). As you know authors are required to make all data underlying the findings described fully available, without restriction, and from the time of publication. PLOS allows rare exceptions to address legal and ethical concerns. See the PLOS Data Policy and FAQ for detailed information. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 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, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. 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: 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: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Endale Tefera ******** [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.0277844.r005
Revision 3
27 Oct 2022 Author Response My main concern is with the data availability. You are saying that the data is available without restrictions but it is not included with the manuscript and there is no link provided to the data location. Also, a google search for the name of the survey did not provide any meaningful link. If you were not involved in data production, it would also help if you provide cite/link to published materials (eg, survey report). As you know authors are required to make all data underlying the findings described fully available, without restriction, and from the time of publication. PLOS allows rare exceptions to address legal and ethical concerns. See the PLOS Data Policy and FAQ for detailed information. The data link has been provided Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Pubarche Plos 3 rebutal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r006
28 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor PONE-D-22-01702R3Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in NigeriaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fagbamigbe, 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. Thank you for providing the link to the data. It requires a minimal change, though, since the data is not fully anonymized. A variable called "Name" is available which could be used to locate the interviewees, something particularly delicate given the topics covered. Please remove the name column or/and replace it with an arbitrary id number. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 12 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, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. 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: [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.0277844.r007
Revision 4
2 Nov 2022 Author Response The link has been provided https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BSeAN7mG4vOYICD7Wec4UvaSYKUhwoNo/view?usp=share_link Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Pubarche Plos 3 rebutal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r008
4 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria PONE-D-22-01702R4 Dear Dr. Fagbamigbe, 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, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The updated data looks complete and is anonymized. The submission is therefore ready for publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r009
Formally Accepted
11 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor PONE-D-22-01702R4 Gender differentials in the timing and prognostic factors of pubarche in Nigeria Dear Dr. Fagbamigbe: 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. José Antonio Ortega Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277844.r010

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 .