Peer Review History
Original SubmissionDecember 31, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-41034 Smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2017 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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 Apr 12 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:
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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Stanton A. Glantz 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries:
Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. 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. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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: No ********** 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: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** 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: I have read this paper with interest. I have some observations. There have been some recent (2020) publications looking at SHS exposure at homes and workplaces. These have been listed below for the authors. Given that, the authors need to better explain the rationale for this study. Substantial edits are required throughout the manuscript (see below). The manuscript requires a thorough copy-editing for English language, structure and meaning that is conveyed. Abstract The authors say “and determine and determine the association between and within smoke-free policies at different setting where secondhand smoking occurs.” This is not very clear. This could be reworded to make this part of the objective clearer. The introductory sentences in the abstract could be removed and more detail could be provided on data source and methods. Description of the results is unclear and could be clarified. The authors mention factors correlated with complete smoke-free policies at home and at workplace and subsequent sentence says therefore both were significantly associated. This is unclear. The authors also mention that both policies were significantly negatively associated with different settings of secondhand smokers. This part “different settings” also should be clarified. What are these different settings? What analysis was done. Overall, abstract requires to be reworked significantly to make objectives, data sources, methods, results and conclusion/policy implication clearer. Introduction Page 3 - National Tobacco Control Programme was established in 2007-08. - Smoking zones are allowed only in hotels with more than 30 rooms, restaurants with more than 30 seats and airports. - ‘Open spaces’ could be reworded as several open spaces are covered e.g. bus-stops, stadiums etc. - Reference/s should be provided for “some previous country- or community-based researches shown that the presence of policies that restrict smoking in the workplace and home may vary by geographical region, occupation, industry and socioeconomic status.” And if this is in the context of GATS, what does ‘industry’ mean here? - Not able to understand here the way authors are trying to justify the importance of studying context of implementation of policies. Yes, the level of implementation may vary by geographic region (and GATS does not measure level of implementation). I believe, at best, the authors are mentioning about correlates of smoke-free policies and the variation therein (between urban/rural geographic regions, across occupational of SES categories). The rationale for studying associations at state-level also needs proper justification. So current justification here needs to be revised. - The authors may also want to have a look at these published papers to clarify their justification for this study: 2) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-019-07341-x 3) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-020-10107-5 Methods Page 5, section 2.2 Why only knowledge about “children’s illness” would be included as an independent variable? SHS exposure causes illness among all. Authors could provide more information about independent variables and groupings. The authors just mention ‘household assets’ but how was SES variable derived from that? Perhaps a supplementary table with variable definitions could be useful. Section 2.3 (Data analysis) – The authors used logistic regression to study the correlates of living in smoke-free homes and working in smoke-free workplaces. Some language edits are required here for clarity. Did the authors perform any multi-collinearity diagnostics? It should be reported. The analysis for state-level within and between analysis needs further description for clarity. This seems relevant because there is no description of how the “State” variable was treated in the analysis. From the results presented (Table 3 and Correlation matrix), it seems only overall National level estimates have been used and presented. Results In tables 1 and 2 the authors could club the other three categories for both outcomes unless they are going into their details. In Table 3, why are gender (for SF at home) and age groups (for SF at workplace) missing as In Table 1 gender is significantly associated with the outcome and in Table 2, age group is also significantly associated (p<0.05). Authors should check this. Ok. At the end of results section and after seeing the correlation matrix, one realizes that it is not the “different settings of second hand smokers” but it is SHS exposure (at home, workplace and public places). This needs to be clarified in the methods and also in the abstract. “Different settings of secondhand smokers” is confusing. Again, when SHS exposure at public places has not been discussed throughout the paper, what is the rationale for bringing that in in the correlation matrix? Discussion Page 7 - First line of discussion – Non-smoker participants were more likely (NOT priorities)…. - Well, most of the results and discussion deals with for e.g. females vs. males are more likely to live in smoke-free homes/workplaces and similar findings. What is not discussed in Discussion section, is the policy implications of the findings. In India, the smoke-free legislation is a national law (under COTPA 2003) and probably the level of implementation varies across geographic areas (rural/urban, national regions, states). So how are the findings specifically relevant to the national policy scenario? That needs to be discussed in detail. Reviewer #2: This study used data from the 2016/17 wave of the GATS conducted in India to analyze the prevalence and determinants of smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace among Indian people aged 15+. Towards this research aim, this study did a great job to perform the analyses rigorously and interpret the results in great detail. However, it is less clear what the second aim -- assessing the state-level within and between relationships among the nature of smoke free policies prevailing at different settings where secondhand smoking occurs -- is about, and why it is important to examine this aim. 1. Title: 2017 should be changed to 2016/2017 because the GATS2-India was conducted in the period between August 2017 and February 2017. 2. Abstract lines 5-6: Why is it necessary to examine the correlation between smoke-free policies in the home and smoke-free policies in the workplace? 3. There is a lack of explanation about the secondhand smoke measure. In the abstract (page 2, lines 6-7), Introduction section (page 4, lines 8-9), Statistical Analysis section (page 5, lines 6-8 of the second paragraph), and Results section (page 7, the second paragraph), the authors talked about the associations between smoke-free policies and different settings of secondhand smoke. However, there is no explanation about the definition of secondhand smoke, how many settings were examined, and how each setting of secondhand smoke was measured. Also, is secondhand smoke an outcome variable or independent variable? This information needs to be described in the Methods section. 4. Introduction, 1st paragraph, lines 9-10: “Among the total tobacco consumers, 42.4% are male and 14.2% are female.” This sentence does not look right because the male tobacco consumers (42.4%) and female consumers (14.2%) should add up to total tobacco consumers (100%). Does “42,2%” refer to “the prevalence of tobacco use”? 5. Introduction, 2nd paragraph, lines 10-12: For the sentence which begins with “Some previous country or community ….”, can you cite some references to justify this sentence? 6. Sample size: Page 4, lines 11-12 of the second paragraph: “After removing respondents with missing values ...” � Please explain the reason for missing values. For example, how many respondents were excluded due to missing values for the outcome variable, and how many due to missing values for independent variables? 7. The paragraph about the independent variables need to be substantially expanded by providing detailed definition of each independent variable. For example, tobacco smoking status was classified into smokers, and non-smokers. How do you define “smokers” and “non-smokers defined”? 8. More explanation is needed about what analyses utilized the chi-square test (which was stated in the “Statistical Analysis” paragraph). Also, please clarify meaning of “a feature selection method for further analysis”. 9. The classification of the two outcome variables – smoke-free policy at home, and smoke-free policy in the workplace – seems confusing and inconsistent. First, In the “Variable of the study” paragraph, the smoke-free policy at home variable was classified as a binary variable: “living in a complete smoke-free home” vs. “not living in a complete smoke-free home“. Second, in the Results section, this variable was classified into a 3-category variable: “complete smoke-free home”, “partial smoke-free home”, and “no rules about smoking”. Third, in Table 1, this variable was classified into a 4-cateogy variable: “never allowed”, “not allowed, but exception”, “no rules”, and “allowed”. It is not clear whether the chi-square test was conducted using the first classification, or the second classification, or the third classification. Similar problem also exists for the smoke-free policy in the workplace variable. 10. Page 6, lines 9-10 of the second paragraph: To justify the claim that “Participants who lived in South region … had the highest tendency to live …..compared to other regions.”, the multivariate logistic regression model needs to be revised using “south” as the reference group.
12. The first sentence in the Conclusion section indicates that “54.4% had complete smoke-free polices at home”, while page 6, line 1 says that 50.4% had complete smoke-free policies at home. Which one is correct? 13. Tables 1-2 need to show total sample size, change “tobacco polices” to “smoke-free policies” in the title, and add footnote to explain what the superscripts “1”, “(a)”, and “(b)” mean. 14. Table 3 needs to add outcome variable information in the title, and change the term “odds ration” to “adjusted odds ratio”. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Gaurang P. Nazar 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 |
PONE-D-20-41034R1 Smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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. There are still many serious methodological issues with your paper. Should you chose to resubmit, please take extra care to ensure that you properly address all the issues the reviewers raised. I will be sending the revised manuscript back to the reviewers for reassessment. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 09 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:
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: http://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, Stanton A. Glantz, PhD 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: (No Response) 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: No 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: No 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: OVERALL The authors have addressed a number of comments that were raised. The manuscript still requires significant copy-editing. There are some concerns regarding the terminologies used. The authors should ensure correct terms are used which are consistent with previous tobacco literature. There are some minor recommendations that I believe would improve the quality of the paper. ABSTRACT: Aim – edit “secondhand smoker’s exposure” to “secondhand smoke exposure”. Please ensure this changed is reflected throughout the manuscript Methods – edit “proportion of secondhand smoker’s exposure” to “proportion of participants exposed to secondhand smoke” Results – edit “Results found that” to “We found that” edit “secondhand smoker’s exposure” to “secondhand smoke exposure” Conclusion – smokefree policies are already in place in India. Maybe authors could emphasize “comprehensive smokefree policies without any exceptions” and their “enhanced monitoring.” This could be a part of discussion and conclusion but authors should note - Penalty for violation of smoke-free legislation in public places is currently only INR 200 (approx USD 2.7) which needs to be increased considerably taking into account inflation and rise in purchasing power/incomes. The proposed COTPA Amendment Bill (2020) proposes to increase this penalty to INR 2000 but this Bill has not yet been tabled in the Parliament. INTRODUCTION First para – 6th line from bottom – remove “of them” First para – 5th line from bottom – “…tendency to smoke themselves but exposure to SHS…” can be replaced by “…tendency to smoke, exposure to SHS….” Second para – last sentence – “a progress of smoke-free policies” should be replaced by “progress in smoke-free policies”. “government still couldn’t reach its ultimate goal” could be replaced by “the policies are still not comprehensive” Third para – “A number of countries or community-based Researches” could simply be replaced by “Previous research has”. And “secondhand smokers exposure” should be replaced at all places by “exposure to secondhand smoke” Variables of the study – I think the household asset variable should be termed as the “wealth quintile” or “asset quintile”. This is typically the term used in similar research papers. Similarly, there is a problem with terminologies here “proportion of smoke-free policies and secondhand smoker’s exposure at both home and workplace”. This could be replaced by “proportion of participants living in smoke-free homes; working in smoke-free workplaces and proportion of participants exposed to secondhand smoke.” The authors should take care of these terminologies throughout the paper. The authors may also want to clarify here whether the proportion of participants exposed to SHS was restricted to non-smokers only. Statistical analysis – “the multicollinearity problem” could be replaced by just “multicollinearity”. The authors should run their regression models with ‘collin’ command (if using STATA) after running each logistic model and look for higher VIF values. While there is no rule of thumb for this, they could report that multicollinearity was assessed and all VIF values were less than 10, indicating no significant multicollinearity between explanatory variables. Multicollinearity between variables can lead to high SEs of coefficients and there are less chances of them being significant. Hence, only of such variables should be retained in the model. Apologies for not pointing this out earlier but in the statistical analysis section, the authors should report about using survey weights “svyset” to account for the complex multistaged GATS survey design. RESULTS Just want to point out here to the authors that SHS typically stands for “Secondhand Smoke” in tobacco literature and not “Secondhand Smoker’s”. This should be corrected throughout the paper and also in tables and their legends. The correct term should be “Secondhand smoke exposure” or SHS exposure. CONCLUSION This needs to be strengthened. As mentioned earlier, the authors studied complete smoke-free policy vs. no/partial smoke-free policy both at home and at workplace. Hence, it is the complete or comprehensive smoke-free policy (without any exceptions [designated smoking rooms] such as at airports, restaurants or hotels) that need to be enforced (not partial). There could be enhanced monitoring of implementation of such comprehensive smoke-free policies and fines/penalties should be substantially increased to discourage smoking in public places (and protect the non-smokers from SHS). Reviewer #2: This revised paper still needs a substantial revision and editing. 1. There are published papers which used the same GATS-India-II data to examine the prevalence and correlates of SHS exposure in India (Tripathy 20201, 2020b). There is a need to discuss how this study differs from the published studies. a. I found some question about sample size. The study by Tripathy (2020) used all observations in the GATS-India-II (N=74,037) and identified 64,538 non-smokers and 9,499 current smokers (including 7,647 daily smokers and 1,852 less-than-daily smokers). After deleting missing values, this study included 71,046 for the analysis of smoke-free policies at home. However, there are 11,321 current smokers according to Table 1. Why the sample size of current smokers is larger than the sample size (11,321 vs. 9,499) in the study by Tripathy (2020) even though the total sample size is smaller (71,046 vs. 74,037)? I suspect that this study might use a different definition of current smokers. b. I also found some inconsistent findings. Tripathy (2020) reported that exposure to SHS in the home was 29.2% among all respondents and it was higher among females (30.4%) compared to males (28.1%); and that exposure to SHS in workplaces was 30% overall and it was higher among males (32.5%) compared to females (17.8%). However, this study yielded opposite results compared with Tripathy (2020). Tripathy JP. Secondhand smoke exposure at home and public places among smokers and non-smokers in India: findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2016-17. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020a;27(6):6033-6041. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-07341-x. Tripathy JP. Smoke-free workplaces are associated with smoke-free homes in India: evidence for action. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020b;27(33):41405-41414. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10107-5. 2. (Page 2, abstract) The main aim of this study is to determine the correlates of smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace. Before addressing the correlates, it is necessary to examine the prevalence of smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace. 3. The second aim of this study is to assess the relationship between smoke-free policies and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. However, there is a lack of explanation for why examining this aim is important. Also, while the main aim of this study was analyzed using persons as the unit of the analysis, this aim was analyzed using states (30 states and 2 Union Territories) as the unit of the analysis. Moreover, while the main aim of this study was analyzed using the multivariable logistic regression model, this aim was analyzed using a simple Pearson’s correlation without adjusting for other confounding factors. If the authors really want to include this second aim in this paper, this aim should be examined in a much more rigorous way. a. First, the definition of the SHS exposure variables, including what GATS questions were used to measure SHS exposure, should be explained clearly in the Methods section. b. Second, a multivariable regression model which controls for other confounding factor should be used to analyze the association between smoke-free policies and SHS exposure. c. Third, justification is needed for why the analysis needs to be conducted at state-level rather than at person-level. 4. (Page 2, abstract). More specific results about the correlates of smoke-free policies need to be provide in the Results section. For example, what are the prevalence estimates for smoke-free policies among all people aged 15+ in India? How does the prevalence differ by sub-groups stratified by each correlate? What are the key findings concerning the adjusted odds ratios for the associations between correlates and smoke-free policies? 5. (Page 2, abstract). The Conclusion section needs to be re-written to highlight the key findings. 6. Page 3, 1st paragraph: “GATS-2 also reports that 38.7% … of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) takes place at home, 30.2% … at workplace and 23% … occurs at any public place”. Before this sentence, it is important to let the readers know what was the prevalence of secondhand smoke exposure in India according to the GATS-2 data. Also, does this sentence mean that among people who were exposed to secondhand smoke, 38.7% were exposed at home, 30.2% were exposed at workplace, and 23% were exposed at public place. These 3 percentages only add up to 91.9%. What is the source of secondhand smoke exposure for the remaining 8.1%? 7. Page 3, 2nd paragraph “Although there is a progress of smoke-free policies … government still couldn’t reach its ultimate goal.” What is the ultimate goal of the National Tobacco Control Program launched in 2007-2008? 8. Page 3, 3rd paragraph. a. Delete the wording “To our best knowledge”. b. In the sentence “However, most of these previous studies have been focused on the prevalence and predictors of tobacco use [11, 18-20]“, the cited studies were not relevant because they are about secondhand smoke exposure rather than about tobacco use. c. In the sentence “A study also observed that a smoke-free workplace was … associated with SHS exposure at home [21]“, Ref #19 can also be cited in addition to Ref #21. d. In the sentence “A number of countries or community … the presence of policies that restrict smoking in the workplace and home may vary by … status [19, 22]“, Ref #19 should not be cited because it is about secondhand exposure rather than about smoke-free policies. 9. Page 4, Data paragraph, in the sentence “The analysis of smoking policies at workplace … but outside their home (adults)“, “smoking policies” should be corrected into ‘smoke-free policies”. Also, were “adults” defined as people aged 18+ or aged 15+? 10. Page 4, Section 2.3: a. In the 1st sentence, delete “The status of” and “consisted of four categories”. b. In the 2nd sentence, change the sentence “To determine the correlates of complete smoke-free policies at home and workplace classified into binary in the following ways “ to “Smoke-free policies at home and workplace were classified into binary in the following ways“. c. If the outcome variable “smoke-free policies at home” is classified as a binary variable as stated in this section, why was this variable classified into a 4-group categorical variable in Table 1? The chi-square test for the association between 2-category smoke-free variable and the independent variable would have different results from the chi-square test for the association between 4-category smoke-free variable and the independent variable. 11. Page 5, 1st paragraph: The entire description of the independent variables was provided only in a supplementary table. Because the main aim of this study is to determine whether the selected independent variables are significant correlates of smoke-free policies, the independent variables should be explained in great detail in the Methods section including their names, definitions, and how they were measures. For example, for the smoking status variable, how were “smokers” defined? What GATS questions were used to define “smokers”? For the “knowledgeable of the children illness”, what GATS questions were used to define this variable? 12. Page 5, Section 2.4, the authors checked multicollinearity based on the values of SE for all predictors by citing Ref #23, which determined multicollinearity by the criteria of whether the magnitude of the SE for all predictors was > 0.5 by citing a study “Chan Y (2004) Biostatistics 202: logistic regression analysis. SingapMed J 45:149–153).” However, in the original work by Chan (2004), it was stated that measuring multicollinearity by inspecting the magnitude of the standard error (SE) of each variable is a simple but subjective technique because there is no fixed criterion on how small the SE should be but a matter of judgment. In the literature, a more widely used technique to diagnose multicollinearity is the variance inflation factor (VIF). 13. On page 6, 1st paragraph, the phrase “by conducting bivariate analysis“ and the sentence “A Chi-square test was used to assess the association … with selected factors. “ should be moved to the Methods section. 14. Page 6, 1st paragraph, in the sentence “… among the participants 54.4% had complete smoke-free policies at their home, 15.6% had partial … and 34% had no rules … (see Table 1)“, there are two problems. First, the sum of 54.4%, 15.6%, and 34% equals 104.0%, which is greater than 100%. There must be typos. Second, these numbers were not shown in Table 1. Similarly, in the next sentence, the reported percentages for smoke-free policy at workplace were not shown in Table 2. 15. Pages 6-7, the Results section needs to be substantially revised to improve the clarity. Some of the reported results (including Table 3) do not seem reasonable. a. For example, in the sentence, “.. elderly people were more likely to enjoy a completely smoke-free environment at their home than the younger counterparts.”, who are the elderly people? Was the group aged 31-45 regarded as “elderly people”? What are the younger counterparts? Is this statement justified by the results in Table 3? I am puzzled why the AORs for the age groups 31-45, 46-60, and ≥60 were greater than 1 and highly significantly (p <.001) while the prevalence of smoke-free home rule was very similar across age groups (49.2% for the 15-30 group, 50.8% for the 31-45 group, 51.6% for the 46-60 group, and 50.6% for the ≥60 group. Was the sample weight used for the logistic regression analysis? I wonder whether the highly statistically significant results were due to the inflated sample size from using the sample weight. If this is the case, the models need to be re-estimated using the normalized weight. b. A sentence states that “Female counterparts had less likely tendency to live in a complete smoke-free atmosphere in their residence compared to the male counterparts.” However, according to Table 1, the prevalence of smoke-free home rules was 50.7% for females and 50.0% for males. Their prevalence rates are quite close. It is peculiar why the AOR for female compared to male was less than 1 (AOR=0.569) and highly significant (p <.001). c. Another sentence states that “Participants who lived in rural areas were 1.211 times more likely to report that they worked in a completely smoke-free environment than their counterparts.” However, according to Table 2, the prevalence of smoke-free workplace rule in rural areas was 52.1%, which is much lower than that in urban areas (69.4%). This illustrated that the reliability of Table 3 results is questionable. d. The sentence “Participants who lived in the South, East, and West region of India had the higher tendency to report that they worked in a completely smoke-free environment compared to other regions” is not justifiable by the Table 3 results. 16. On page 7, the 2nd paragraph, the phrase “According to a research study,” should be deleted. 17. Pages 8-9, the Discussion section needs substantial revision by rigorously comparing the findings of this study with the literature, e.g,. how the findings are similar to or different from the previously published studies in the field, rather than repeating what has been presented in the Results section. 18. On page 8, the 2nd paragraph, the sentence “Married and separated people were more habituated to smoking in their workplace“ is inconsistent with the results shown in Table 3. 19. On page 9, the 1st paragraph, the meaning of the 4 sentences (“The research paper demonstrated that …. It could be detrimental for children in a two-fold way. They could fall victim …. But, if the children belonged to a highly educated and high income family, the exposure risk would decrease“) is not clear. How are these sentences relevant to the findings of this study? 20. On page 9, the 2nd paragraph, the sentence “For instance, … such as section 4 (smoking in public places-59.28%), 6-a (implementation level-68.57%) and 6-b (implementation level-52.85%) were observed to be violated to some extent [37].“ What does “implementation level” mean? How was it measured? 21. On Page 10, the authors cited a study conducted in the United States to explain the limitation of the GATS survey. This does not make sense. 22. Page 10, the last sentence — “… so that the projection of WHO about India being the only South Asian country to curb its smoking prevalence by 30% within 2025 will turn to be a success” is ambiguous. First, it needs to cite a reference about the WHO projected goal of smoking prevalence by 2014 for India. Second, it needs to explain what is the current smoking prevalence in India. This sentence seems to be contradictory to the information presented in the Introduction section (Page 3, lines 8-9): “Findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2 (GATS-2)-2017 indicate that 266.8 (28.6%) millions of all adults use tobacco in any form in India where 10.7% smoke tobacco”. Wasn’t India’s cigarette smoking prevalence rate in 2016-2017 10.7%? 23. Tables 1-2 need to add a row to show results for all the persons in the final study sample. 24. Tables 3-4 need to show the total sample size for the analysis. 25. In the Supplementary Table A1, for the age variable, “Up to 60 years” should be corrected into “More than 60 years”. 26. Inconsistent terms: a. Smoke-free policies vs. smoking policies. The term “smoking policies” used in several places (e.g., page 4, line 2) should be corrected into “smoke-free policies”. b. Outcome variables & independent variables (Section 2.3, line 1 and line 13) vs. dependent variables & explanatory variables (page 5, Section 2.4, line 3). c. GATS2 vs. GATS 2 27. Inappropriate terms: “secondhand smoker’s exposure” should be corrected into “secondhand smoke exposure”. ********** 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: Yes: Dr. Gaurang P. Nazar 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 2 |
PONE-D-20-41034R2Smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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 new reviewers were invited to assess the revised manuscript as the previous reviewers were unavailable. The reviewers believe that while the authors have addressed the comments of the previous reviewer, some additional changes are required to further improved the manuscript. Please note that the reviewers believe that overall quality of language in the mansucript can be improved. PLOS ONE cannot provide copy editing for accepted mansucript and therefore, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 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:
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, Lucinda Shen 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 #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: - More should be said about the smoke-free policies and their enforcement. It is not clear why, if there are smoke-free policies, people still smoke at workplaces, e.g. More should be said about how policies have been implemented, i.e., if there are fines in case of non-compliance, and it there is some monitoring. - The dependent variable should not be called smoke-free “policies” since authors are not evaluating policies. Instead, it should be named smoking “norms”, e.g. - Authors have been including several variables, but do not provide any justification to include them. It seems more they have been “fishing” factors, without any clear theoretical background to consider specific variables. In the same line, the Discussion fails to provide explanations for why women, richer and more educated people live and work in more smoke-free environments. - The correlation between SHS and smoke-free policies is not convincing as it does not consider potential confounders, as this is the case in the main analysis. - There is a clear problem of reverse causation when using the smoker variable, as living in a more smoke-free environment reduces the likelihood to smoke. To avoid this problem, authors may use the prevalence of smoking in the region or municipality, e.g. - More generally, the implementation of norms is related to contextual variables, namely, the degree of enforcement of policies, cultural perceptions about smoking, other anti-tobacco policies (taxes, sales bans to minors, etc), or communication strategies by local authorities. - The relevance of the paper is not clearly highlighted. Authors should state why measuring the determinants of smoke-free environments is relevant from a public health viewpoint, and how results may be relevant for decision making. We miss a section with the policy implications of the paper. Reviewer #4: General comments The authors have responded to all comments by the previous reviewers. However, some major language revision are still needed (especially the results and discussion sections) to help improve the readability of the manuscript. Abstract Some of the sentences needs restructuring to make it read better. Introduction As mentioned by previous reviewers, please elaborate on the importance of the second objective (i.e. correlation between state-level smoke free policy and SHS exposure). Materials and Methods Results In many places, the sentences need to be rewritten. For example: Page 6 Line 15 “ About 28.5% of tobacco smokers were kept to complete smoke-free policies in the home, whereas 48.5% of smokers in the workplace”. The meaning of this sentence is unclear. Do the authors mean “25% and 48.5% of tobacco smokers have smoke-free policies in their homes and workplace respectively?” Table 2: � To indicate which variables were adjusted for in the multivariable model? � I suggest that the table be titled differently to better describe its contents. A suggestion is “Correlates of smoke-free policies in the home and the workplace in India” � Th occupation ‘daily wise/causal labourer’ is probably meant to be ‘daily wage/casual labourer’? Table 3: � As pointed out by a previous reviewer, the word multivariable is appropriate here rather than multivariate logistic regression (The terms are not interchangeable). � ORs and the 95% CIs need be expressed up to 2 decimals only. � The use of the ‘’registered’ ® symbol to indicate the reference category is rather inappropriate (Or does this symbol appear only on my computer?). The authors may put ‘1’, ‘Reference’ or ‘.ref’ in the AOR for the reference category instead to indicate this. Table 4: � The table should be given a more descriptive title e.g. “Correlations between smoke-free policies in the home and workplace and secondhand smoke exposure” � Only half of the table cells need to be filled as the other half is redundant (have the same values). � The correlation coefficient may be reported to only 2 decimals. � ‘SHS at home’ should be ‘SHS exposure at home’ (similarly for workplace and public places). � In the footnote, SHS should stand for secondhand smoke instead of secondhand smoker. Discussion Suggest to first summarize the finding and then interpretation and discussion in each paragraph. For example on Pg 8 para 3, it would help to state the correlation finding first before explaining the possible reasons why it is so. The language style throughout the section need to be given a another round of proofreading. - Example on Pg 8 “Literature suggests the fact that” should be “literature suggest that” Pg 8, “Other ocupations tend to..” does “other occupations” mean non-professional occupations? Pg 8: The statement “unspoiled , contaminated environment”, unspoiled and contaminated are contradictory, please check this statement. Conclusion The implications of the study findings with regards to tobacco control policy as commented by the previous reviewer are still not spelled out. What can the authorities do with the findings? Make more specific suggestions/recommendations. ********** 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 #3: Yes: Julian Perelman Reviewer #4: 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 3 |
PONE-D-20-41034R3Smoking norms in the home and in the workplace among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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. The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised a number of major concerns. They feel the manuscript should outline a clearly-defined research question, and they request improvements to the reporting of methodological aspects of the study. They also request improvement to the English language quality. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 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:
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, Thomas Phillips, PhD Staff 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 #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 1) I beg to differ with the other reviewer who suggested changing the term "smoke-free policy" to "smoking norms". In my opinion, using the term "smoke-free policy" is more accurate. 2) In Table 3, please place the number 1 to indicate the reference category in the AOR column instead of the p value column. 3)All other issues were addressed except for language, which still needs correcting. Example: In Discussion, Para 3- "Literatures are suggesting the fact........ than people engaged in other government/non government professional careers" needs to be rewritten. In its current form, the meaning of this sentence is unclear. ********** 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 4 |
PONE-D-20-41034R4Smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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 Dec 01 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:
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, Sandra Boatemaa Kushitor, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, This manuscript has potential but cannot be accepted for publication in its current format. The authors change the focus of the manuscript at different points in the manuscript. The written is unclear. The authors should confirm whether they are examining the influence of smoke-free policies on smoke-free practices at home and work, and whether adopting smoke-free practices result in less SHS. I believe this is the story they want to tell. However, it is unclear. They should also specify whether it is the same people they they assessed for smoke-free practices at home and at work. Sometimes the difference is unclear in their write up. [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 #5: (No Response) Reviewer #6: 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 #5: Partly Reviewer #6: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 #5: No Reviewer #6: 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 #5: Overall very useful topic, but these substantial revisions, and language editing. Introduction The prevalence of male and female tobacco consumers is 42.4% and 14.2%. The denominator is not clear here. References 6 and 13 in page number 3. How do these references say that there is progress in smoke-free policies in indoor public/workplaces The lack of evidence on smoke-free policies in homes and suboptimal implementation of smoke-free workplaces need to be highlighted to provide a rationale for doing this study. Page number 05: “It is classified into binary categories in the following ways: the respondent was classified as living in a completely smoke-free home” Living in a smoke-free home is a misnomer here as we don’t know whether the home is smoke-free or not. We only know that there is smoke-free policy in the home. So you have to choose these words carefully throughout the manuscript. So we can say that the categories are: having a smoke-free policy at home or not? Table 3: Please put p-value column on the right side of the aOR column Table 4: please clearly state that these correlations depict relationships at a state level and also write the total number (N) for each correlation. Major comments: There is a major confusion in this paper. You are defining two things in the methods section (variables of the study sub-section): smoke-free policy in home and workplace and exposure to SHS in home and workplace. Both are different concepts as rightly defined. However, in the results you are probably exploring correlates of smoke-free policy. Why do you define SHS exposure under the variables of the study section? Out of 74, 037 we chose 71,046 and 15,254 for SHS at home and workplace respectively. How did you arrive at these numbers? Please provide a flowchart showing the flow of respondents. Discussion 65 and above are mostly tended to stay smoke-free in their home h. Please rectify this sentence “female people emphasized more on a smoke-free zone in their workplace more than their opposite gender” “Married people were less tending to enjoy a complete non-smoking work environment as well as their home than their single counterparts” “Contrarily, separated persons were expected to enjoy a more smokefree environment in their residence.” The use of verbs such as emphasize, tending to enjoy, expected to enjoy does not seem to fit your findings. Rephrasing these statements would help. Muslims were more likely to maintain a smoke-free workplace but not a smoke-free home. The use of religion as an explanation seems contradicting here. Any possible reason/speculation for the regional differences in smoke-free policies? Exploring the answers and possible speculations require a thorough understanding of the country’s culture, tobacco habits, regional differences which might not be the case here as all the authors belong to another country i.e. Bangladesh. I wonder what is the rationale for conducting this study in an Indian setting. Any possible reason/speculation for the association of education and occupation with Smoke free policy. Discussion section lacks a paragraph on policy implications based on the key findings of the study “However, we didn’t adjust some other possible confounding factors which could be explored further” Mention what are the possible confounders which could be explored further Page 09: Furthermore, if an individual is forced to be refrained from smoking in the workplace, it would ultimately lead to quit smoking in the home also. Give suitable references here Discussion needs more streamlining. It should begin with the key highlights of the paper and each highlight could be discussed in separate paragraph with reference to other studies in the literature, possible reasons and speculations or differences within studies. Conclusion looks a bit repetitive of what has been said before. A more crisp and clear messaging would help. Reviewer #6: This study examines factors associated with smoke-free policies at home and in workplace using the 2017 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) in India. Additionally, the study examines the correlations between secondhand smoke exposure and smokefree policies. The variables were selected from the literature; therefore, the findings were mostly consistent with the existing literature. Nevertheless, this is the first kind of study in a country with the second largest of tobacco users in the world. The main results show that substantial number of people in the country are not covered by complete smokefree policies which is significant to inform policy initiatives. As such, it provides an added value to the literature. Further, the authors appear to be responsive to earlier reviews. With the above said, here are few suggestions: 1) Consider creating a third paragraph for the introduction, starting with "Several studies have been conducted ...." 2) The study's aim is still not well-articulated in the paragraph #2. 3) In section 2.1, did you examine that the data you excluded were not significantly different from the analytic samples. 4) In section 2.4, add the name of the manufacturer and the City and country in a parenthesis after "STATA version 12 (...., ....) 5) In reporting the results (section 3.2), can you report OR, CI, and P-value? 6) Please note that this is a cross-sectional study; therefore, the results should not be interpreted as establishing a causation, instead of association 7) Key limitations of the study are missing, particularly biases such as recall and social desirability. The cross-sectional data by itself is a limitation The minor issues involve attention to details --- 1) Place comma (,) before "respectively" 2) Delete "h" on the third line under section 4 Discussion 3) Consider removing grid on tables 2 and 3 ********** 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 #5: Yes: Jaya Prasad Tripathy Reviewer #6: 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 5 |
PONE-D-20-41034R5Smoke-free policies in the home and in the workplace among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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. Before your manuscript can be consider for review, please respond to the comments of the editor. The comments can be found in the attached pdf document. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2023 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:
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, Sandra Boatemaa Kushitor, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Please respond to the comments raised by the editor and provide a rebuttal these comments in the response to reviewers file. My comments are in the reattached pdf. Thank you. [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.
|
Revision 6 |
PONE-D-20-41034R6Smoke-free status of homes and workplaces among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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 revising your manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers. I would like to suggest that you language edit your files for onward processing. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2023 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:
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, Sandra Boatemaa Kushitor, 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.] [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 7 |
PONE-D-20-41034R7Smoke-free status of homes and workplaces among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alauddin, 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. Kindly edit the abstract to reflect the change from smoke free policies to smoke free status. I recommend that the manuscript should be reviewed by a professional proofreader. The authors should attach a letter a of from the proof reader when submitting the revisions. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2023 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:
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, Sandra Boatemaa Kushitor, 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.] [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 8 |
Smoke-free status of homes and workplaces among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data-2016/2017 PONE-D-20-41034R8 Dear Dr. Alaudin, 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, Sandra Boatemaa Kushitor, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-41034R8 Smoke-free status of homes and workplaces among Indian people: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco SurveyData-2016/2017 Dear Dr. Alauddin: 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. Sandra Boatemaa Kushitor 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 .