PONE-D-22-13582Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence on ethnicity and tobacco use from LASI, wave-1PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pati,

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 August 12, 2022, 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jayanta Kumar Bora,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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: There are few things to be corrected within the already written paper, which were also highlighted in supporting reviewed file.

The authors must go through folloing points:

1. Go through some already published plosone paper's and make proper citation.

2. For some words use synonyms or different words.

3. Mention why you have categorised age as 14 years difference, the answer my be supported with previous literature.

4. If the authors has taken "living arrangent variable" for 'living with partner' and 'living without partner', then how the authors manage 'living alone category'. Also in Independent variable/covariates section, mention the name of "variable taken from LASI", and how you have recoded the variables for your study.

5. Go through some already published plosone paper's and make tables properly. Also, use Inactive instead of not active, its sound better in research article.

6. In table 2, authors have make hapazard table. Please try to take the same category in reference among all parameters. Its better to re-do the table 2, specially for variables like- age, education, life-partner, religion, and asset quintile. If not agreed for re-doing then give valid reason for keeping such vigorous category referencing in methodilogy section.

7. Asset quintile category should be named in a similar fashion, keep same type of naming for all five categories. Don't use 2,3,4 suddenly in between most deprived and most affluent. Authors may use (extremely, less, medium, high, very high) type of categorization.

8. Do not use 'our participants'. Use correct english. Authors may use 'study participants'.

There are few things that are required to do for this paper,

1. Most of the literature cited were taken from less prevalent states. (Example- Madhya Pradesh, & Kerala). But north-eastern are highly tobacco prevalent states. Please go through some papers on north-eastern states, there are plenty of works available for north eastern states.

2. In conclusion writing a line like (Regional variations should be managed by adopting good practices of regions with higher tobacco control) is not justified. Authors must name the states where government intervention is required.

3. Authors have perfecly done a regional analysis. But naming the states within that region is necessary. For example there is high prevalence of tobacco in north eastern states, and Assam government banned tobacco products on 22 November 2019. Then Tripura government can take similar steps, is a conclusion. Authors may write conclusion section in such a way.

4. Last but not least, authors should concentrate more on high tribal population states like Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, & Chattisgarh. Alongwith higher percentage of Tribal population states like Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, & Manipur.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript authors have made an attempt to estimate the prevalence of tobacco use among tribal population aged 45 years or above in India based on secondary data-LASI. Efforts shown by the authors are good but there some major concerns in this current version of the manuscript listed below:

1. The literature search appears less robust and authors have missed on many recent publications. The high prevalence of tobacco use among this socially vulnerable group has been already established in the last literature and information provided here is not adding anything new to the existing knowledge. Therefore, rationale to conduct this study on tobacco use among aged tribal population needs a stronger rationale.

2. The citations need to be updated and should follow a specific format as per the journal guideline. There are also some repetitions or in a format difficult to understand say for example 18. 19

3. In methodology section, the analysis part seems incomplete. Even for regression analysis, what covariates were adjusted were not clear. The association between alcohol consumption and tobacco use might be misleading unless controlling covariates are clearly mentioned. It is also not clear how did they adjust for sample weights. The presentations in the the table appear much cluttered and hard to comprehend.

4. Apart from misclassification error, there are possibilities of other potential sources of biases which authors didn't mention and also how did authors try to adjust for such biases is also not mentioned

5. The overall writing style and presentations needs to be more comprehensive

Reviewer #3: The paper is trying to address an important question on tobacco use behaviour of the tribal population in India and understand their determinants within this group. However, I do have some major comments to improve this paper.

1. This paper is based on LASI data which is nationally and state representative. However, since this study is conducted on a specific set of population, any estimation for ST population at the state level may not be appropriate, as the total sample of ST population in this data is 11,365 tribal individuals aged ≥ 45 years. Segregating this data at the state level will lead to very few cases in smaller states. Therefore, I would recommend Authors to remove Figure 3 completely from this paper. If they want they can provide a table of prevalence of tobacco use in bigger states only in the form of a table in place of Figure 3.

2. I also fail to understand the reason for taking difference reference group each time for wealth quintile for tobacco, Smokeless and smoking outcome. Similarly, west region was used as reference for smoking and North for Smokeless and tobacco use. Can the Authors provide their reason for changing references in these models for the same socio demographic characteristics, or they should make these reference consistent and re do the logistic regression analysis, otherwise it may be difficult to compare the results for different form of tobacco use and their association with these characteristics.

3. Are there any evidence which suggest that physical activity leads to higher/lower tobacco use. I did find literature the other way around. Authors should provide some appropriate references to substantiate their choice of physical activity as one of the variable.

Jeon, H. G., Kim, G., Jeong, H. S., & So, W. Y. (2021, February). Association between Cigarette Smoking and Physical Fitness Level of Korean Adults and the Elderly. In Healthcare (Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 185). MDPI.

Conway, T. L., & Cronan, T. A. (1992). Smoking, exercise, and physical fitness. Preventive medicine, 21(6), 723-734.

4. GATS-2 has collected information about the tobacco consumption and provide caste wise data as well. Why the authors have chosen LASI data for this specific study need to be mentioned clearly. For example, GATS collected selective socioeconomic characteristics data while LASI provides a detail information on this front.

5. Authors can also provide some comparison of GATS-2 and LASI tobacco use data for ST population in the discussion.

**********

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: Tushar Dakua

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Akansha Singh

**********

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

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13582.pdf

PONE-D-22-13582R1Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence on ethnicity and tobacco use from LASI, wave-1PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pati,

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. =============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Authors,

Please address the following comments:

1) In the title, “Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence on ethnicity and tobacco use from LASI, wave-1”, the term like ‘tobacco use’ is repetitive. Again, the term tribal has already been mentioned in the title, the term ‘ethnicity’ may not be required. The title may be simplified to ‘Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence from the first wave of LASI (full form??)’.

2) Why were smokers and users of tobacco in dual for clubbed into smokers? They are one more dangerous category. The study might have a greater weightage if the severity of the tobacco consumption is considered like only smokeless/other form users, only smokers and both smokers and non-smokers.

4) The sampling weights given in LASI are meant for the general population and may not be applicable to the tribal population.

5) P10 L212: ‘For this analysis, 11,365 scheduled tribes aged 45 years and above were included.’ I think you mean scheduled tribe participants here?

6) It should be clearly mentioned in the methodology that the wealth quintiles have been generated from the general population, not from the tribal population.

7) Table 2 headings are given as n (%) but data is reflected in n, % (CI). The variable names may be aligned to left (Age, Gender etc). Why are one reference category at the top and the other at the bottom?

8) Why do tribal groups from eastern regions have the highest tobacco consumption? This may be reflected from the existing literature. Does it reflect socio-cultural upbringing of any major tribal group/s?

9) Proper referencing should be done for some of the references like “National_Fact_Sheet_of_fourth_round_of_Global_Youth_Tobacco_Survey_GYTS- 4.pdf.”

10) Please correct the spelling of state names like Maharashtra and Rajasthan in Figure 3.

11) Manuscripts may be carefully edited for scientific language and grammatical errors. 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,

Mohsen Abbasi-Kangevari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (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 #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: I have reviewed the paper comprehensively. I found that authors have addressed the issues, which I have raised earlier.

Reviewer #4: This present study deals with an important aspect of social determinants of tobacco use among tribals in India. The paper is revised by the authors after the first round of review. However, I have the following comments on the paper:

1) In the title, “Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence on ethnicity and tobacco use from LASI, wave-1”, the term like ‘tobacco use’ is repetitive. Again, the term tribal has already been mentioned in the title, the term ‘ethnicity’ may not be required. The title may be simplified to ‘Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence from the first wave of LASI (full form??)’.

2) Why were smokers and users of tobacco in dual for clubbed into smokers? They are one more dangerous category. The study might have a greater weightage if the severity of the tobacco consumption is considered like only smokeless/other form users, only smokers and both smokers and non-smokers.

4) The sampling weights given in LASI are meant for the general population and may not be applicable to the tribal population.

5) P10 L212: ‘For this analysis, 11,365 scheduled tribes aged 45 years and above were included.’ I think you mean scheduled tribe participants here?

6) It should be clearly mentioned in the methodology that the wealth quintiles have been generated from the general population, not from the tribal population.

7) Table 2 headings are given as n (%) but data is reflected in n, % (CI). The variable names may be aligned to left (Age, Gender etc). Why are one reference category at the top and the other at the bottom?

8) Why do tribal groups from eastern regions have the highest tobacco consumption? This may be reflected from the existing literature. Does it reflect socio-cultural upbringing of any major tribal group/s?

9) Proper referencing should be done for some of the references like “National_Fact_Sheet_of_fourth_round_of_Global_Youth_Tobacco_Survey_GYTS- 4.pdf.”

10) Please correct the spelling of state names like Maharashtra and Rajasthan in Figure 3.

11) Manuscripts may be carefully edited for scientific language and grammatical errors.

**********

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: Tushar Dakua

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.

PONE-D-22-13582R2Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence from the first wave of Longitudinal Aging study of IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pati,

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 following points: Academic Editor's Comments:

1. The revised manuscript still needs language editing in some of its sections. Please follow some of the editing done in the attached copy of the manuscript (with track change).

2. In line 185-187: Authors have used the sentence “Wealth quintiles (poorest, poorer, middle, richer, richest) were based on the monthly per capita expenditure of the general population.” LASI data does not provide wealth quintile; it is MPCE quintile and they can’t be used interchangeably. So, replace the wealth quintile with the MPCE quintile, wherever used. Authors can avoid the limitation of using the indicator calculated based on the general population by calculating the MPCE quintile for their sample (tribal population) as well. This can be easily done using the expenditure details on food and non-food items including spending on health, education, utilities etc. given in the household dataset.

3. Follow the other comments and suggestions mentioned in the attached edited copy of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 18 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:

• 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,

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

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript_main_edited_Editors Comments.docx

Social determinants of tobacco use among tribal communities in India: evidence from the first wave of Longitudinal Aging study of India

PONE-D-22-13582R3

Dear Dr. Pati,

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,

Chandan Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: