Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 13, 2022
Decision Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor

PONE-D-22-19492Prevalence and correlates of multidimensional child poverty in India during 2015-2021: A multilevel analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pradhan,

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.

Minor Revisions 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 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,

Faisal Abbas, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. 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:

minor revision.

[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 document is well written and issue is very pertinent. There is a need to research child poverty. It would be better if you add a discussion on child poverty with household poverty. As the document also mentions that the child has different needs and it may be the case that a household that we count as non-poor has poor child (multi-dimensionally).

It would be better to add the this discussion.

Secondly compare the statistics of this study with some published empirical literature so that robustness of the measurement can be highlighted.

Reviewer #2: The article is on important socioeconomic issue of child poverty titled "Prevalence and correlates of multidimensional child poverty in India during 2015-2021: A multilevel analysis". Alkire-Foster methodology is used to estimate the child poverty. The bivariate analysis is used to estimate the prevalence, and the chi-square test was carried out to show the significance level of the association between the outcome variable and its correlates. Later, multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to find the important cofounder and cluster level variation in child poverty.

The paper is well organized. The author/s has carried out an empirical study. The subject matter of this work is of relevance to the theme of the journal, which would be helpful in the context of analysis of overall literature contribution in the field. The information presented is based on published data. Following are some specific issues/comments for improvement in the quality of the article.

1. The abstract should be in a single paragraph and clearly mentioning the policy implications emerging from it.

2. The introduction section should include significance of study on previous studies and for the policy i.e. rational of the study and it should also include literature gap. Recent studies on the topic should also be included.

3. The choice of methodology is also important. The author(s) has used standard Alkire-Foster methodology which has been used in many studies. The novelty of the methodology should be narrated and should also be mentioned that why it is specifically used.

7. Some recent literature should be added to justify the results.

8. I would like to see more discussion in the discussion section and concluding section by comparing the results with other studies.

9. The policy implications should be added more explicitly based on the results emerging from the article.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of the manuscript and for providing insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped improve our manuscript's quality. All the suggestions have been addressed in the revised manuscript. The manuscript is thoroughly revised, and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer's comments are listed below.

Note: the reviewers' and editor's comments/suggestions and their responses are incorporated in the final manuscript in tracked change mode.

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: The document is well written and issue is very pertinent. There is a need to research child poverty. It would be better if you add a discussion on child poverty with household poverty. As the document also mentions that the child has different needs and it may be the case that a household that we count as non-poor has poor child (multi-dimensionally). It would be better to add the this discussion.

Response: The authors are thankful for the suggestion now it has been incorporated into the revised manuscript. The changes have been done in lines 435-438.

Comment 2: Secondly compare the statistics of this study with some published empirical literature so that robustness of the measurement can be highlighted.

Response: The authors are grateful for the suggestion. As suggested, we have added findings from recent studies on child MPI(UNDP and OPHI, 2022) . The change have been done in lines 426-432.

Reviewer #2:

The article is on important socioeconomic issue of child poverty titled "Prevalence and correlates of multidimensional child poverty in India during 2015-2021: A multilevel analysis". Alkire-Foster methodology is used to estimate the child poverty. The bivariate analysis is used to estimate the prevalence, and the chi-square test was carried out to show the significance level of the association between the outcome variable and its correlates. Later, multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to find the important cofounder and cluster level variation in child poverty.

The paper is well organized. The author/s has carried out an empirical study. The subject matter of this work is of relevance to the theme of the journal, which would be helpful in the context of analysis of overall literature contribution in the field. The information presented is based on published data. Following are some specific issues/comments for improvement in the quality of the article.

Comment 1: The abstract should be in a single paragraph and clearly mentioning the policy implications emerging from it.

Response: The suggestion are incorporated with single paragraph abstract. Moreover, policy implications have been improved to the revised manuscript abstract section. The change have been done in lines 48-50.

Comment 2: The introduction section should include the significance of study on previous studies and for the policy i.e. rational of the study and it should also include literature gap. Recent studies on the topic should also be included.

Response: Thank you for suggesting the literature gap with the rationale of the study has been incorporated into the revised manuscript. The changes have been done in lines 138-143. Following references have been incorporated in the revised draft.

13. Trani JF, Biggeri M, Mauro V. The multidimensionality of child poverty: Evidence from Afghanistan. Social indicators research. 2013 Jun;112(2):391-416.

14. Singh R, Sarkar S. Children's experience of multidimensional deprivation: Relationship with household monetary poverty. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 2015 May 1;56:43-56.

15. Alkire S. Child Poverty in Bhutan: Insights from Multidimensional Child Poverty Index (C-MPI) and Qualitative Interviews with Poor Children. National Statistics Bureau,[Government of Bhutan]; 2016.

20. Alkire S, Ul Haq R, Alim A. The state of multidimensional child poverty in South Asia: a contextual and gendered view. OPHI Working Paper 127, University of Oxford; 2019.

22. Nawab T, Raza S, Shabbir MS, Yahya Khan G, Bashir S. Multidimensional poverty index across districts in Punjab, Pakistan: estimation and rationale to consolidate with SDGs. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022 Jan 19:1-25.

Comment 3: The choice of methodology is also important. The author(s) has used standard Alkire-Foster methodology which has been used in many studies. The novelty of the methodology should be narrated and should also be mentioned that why it is specifically used.

Response: We appreciate the suggestion. The AF method is globally utilized to measure poverty due to its adaptability and provide control to the researcher. A detailed description is added to the revised manuscript's 'Construction of MPI' section. The changes have been done in lines 217-224. Following references are cited regarding the advantages of AF method over other poverty measures.

21. Dirksen J, Alkire S. Children and Multidimensional Poverty: Four Measurement Strategies. Sustainability [Internet]. MDPI AG; 2021;13:9108. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13169108

44. Alkire S, Roche JM, Ballon P, Foster J, Santos ME, Seth S. Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.

Comment 4: Some recent literature should be added to justify the results.

Response: As suggested, now we have incrportaed few recent literature in the revised MS.

Nawab T, Raza S, Shabbir MS, Yahya Khan G, Bashir S. Multidimensional poverty index across districts in Punjab, Pakistan: estimation and rationale to consolidate with SDGs. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022 Jan 19:1-25.

Alkire S. Child Poverty in Bhutan: Insights from Multidimensional Child Poverty Index (C-MPI) and Qualitative Interviews with Poor Children. National Statistics Bureau,[Government of Bhutan]; 2016.

UNDP and OPHI. Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2022: Unpacking deprivation bundles to reduce multidimensional poverty. Available from :https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdp-document/2022mpireportenpdf.pdf

Comment 5: I would like to see more discussion in the discussion section and concluding section by comparing the results with other studies.

Response: The discussion section has been updated with more relevant research work. The changes have been done in lines 524-529, 538-541.

Comment 6: The policy implications should be added more explicitly based on the results emerging from the article.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The policy implication has been extended in line with the study findings.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx
Decision Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor

Prevalence and correlates of multidimensional child poverty in India during 2015-2021: A multilevel analysis

PONE-D-22-19492R1

Dear Dr. Pradhan,

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,

Faisal Abbas, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

accept with minor revision.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: 1. The manuscript need to be carefully proof read for spellings and grammar correction such as Line 416.

2. The random variation at PSU level and district needs further clarification based on the case of India. Why does the PSU level variation is lesser than district level variation. Identify district level variables that are responsible for random variation and may be incorported in the model for future research.

3. Why did not the researcher test the region level variation (uban/rural)?

4. Diagnostic tests are missing.

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Faisal Abbas, Editor

PONE-D-22-19492R1

Prevalence and correlates of multidimensional child poverty in India during 2015-2021: A multilevel analysis

Dear Dr. Pradhan:

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. Faisal Abbas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .