PONE-D-22-07117Compliance with smoke-free legislation in public places: An observational study in a Northeast City of BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saifur Rahman Chowdhury,

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. Our both reviewers have asked for major revisions which have been stated. Kindly resubmit after the clarifications sought.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 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,

S. Muhammad Salim Khan

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The authors are very much grateful to Mohammad Shamimul Islam, Team Leader, BCCP Tobacco Control Program, Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs (BCCP), for his continuous supervision, kind cooperation, and encouragement during the entire period of this research project. Heartiest thanks also to Mohammad Shahjahan, Director & CEO, Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs (BCCP), for his continuous cooperation in successfully completing this project. The authors would like to put forward our utmost respect to the authorities of all public places in Sylhet City for their consent and support to collect data. The authors are much grateful to all the data collectors who worked accountably to collect data. Lastly, the authors are very much acknowledged to Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs (BCCP) and Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Baltimore, USA. This study was conducted with technical input from the Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs (BCCP) and Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Baltimore, USA, and financial support from the Bloomberg Initiative."

We note that you have provided funding information. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"Support for this study was provided by the Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs (BCCP) with funding awarded by Bloomberg Philanthropies to Johns Hopkins University. Grant number is GC#BCCP/Tobacco Control/2020-57. Saifur Rahman Chowdhury received this grant in reference to the technical and cost proposal from the Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs (https://www.bangladesh-ccp.org/). The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of Bloomberg Philanthropies or Johns Hopkins University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: The study is conducted with lot of efforts and is being presented effectively. The need of study is also justified. Data are collected with lot of care and is presented well.

There is one objection on analysis which to me seems of a great concern. The average percentages concept used in the analysis, can not be considered correct. Few suggestion for overall percentages

1. Summing up all compliance options with OR condition (for instance if for one case {absent of active smoking =1, presence of no smoking signage = 0, Display of no signage at entrance = 0, no smoking signage is in compliance with law = 1, Absence of cigarretes buts, bidi ends or ashes = 1, absence of smoking aids = 0} for overall compliance it will count "1" for that cases) The overall percentage will be calculated through that column of overall.

this scenario will work if every option is given equal weightage.

2. If every option has different weightage then maximum of the weightage will be the final option.

3. A criterion can be made (e.g. if 4 of the 7 compliances are answered "yes" and 3 are answered "no", overall it will go to "yes"

IF overall percentages are changed by using one of these methods then the manuscript is acceptable in my point of view. If some justification for using average percentages is provided by the author and is acceptable by the editorial board or by some other expert in the field that will be appreciable.

Regards

Reviewer #2: I think the paper addresses an interesting and important research question in a country like Bangladesh with a high current smoking prevalence. However, the English in the present manuscript is not of publication quality for Plos One journal and requires improvement. I recommend the manuscript be copy edited by a native English speaker. In addition, I had the following concerns:

Abstract

• Please indicate the study period in the abstract. Please mention the place of data collection in the objectives part.

• The technique of the data collection should be mentioned in the method section of the abstract. What factors were considered during the observation, (e.g. evidence of smoking (observed smoking, cigarette butt litter, and display of ashtrays, the presence of designated smoking areas/rooms, presence of points of sale or etc. ) and what was the outcome of the study?

• The results section should be limited to the most important numbers. There is no need to bring all detailed results such as % of compliance in each observed section.

Introduction

In the introduction part there is huge information on the burden of smoking worldwide. However, there is lacking on evidence on the smoking prevalence and burden of the tobacco use in Bangladesh.

Methods

Please indicate the reason for the selection of this city to conduct the study. The tool provided by the John Hopkins university is almost a comprehensive tool. Why was it not used alone and researcher decided to modify it through literature review? Which changes have been made to the original instrument? Please describe the changes made in the study tool.

I have some concerns about the operational definitions too. I found them more conceptual rather than operational. Please bring them in a way that reader realize how you defined variables such as active smoking (for example, active smoking in a public place: Active smoking in a public place was marked as present if anyone was seen smoking during the researcher’s visit at the public place being observed for the study) or other variables such as smoking aids, cigarette/bidi stubs/butts, cigarette smell and etc. This part should be rewritten according to the variables included in the tool.

Discussion

Please compare you results with other developing countries or countries close by like Pakistan, India or Nepal. It is better to mention the name of the country instead of the name of the authors for similar studies that actually mentioned in the discussion part. I suggest that at the end of the discussion part the authors elaborate potential solutions and policy options to address low compliance rate. What is your suggestion about the Venue managers? Are they responsible for ensuring that all public places that they operate are smoke free? What can be done to increase population awareness regarding the harm of smoking (social media, tobacco campaign,...)?

**********

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: Muhammad Aasim

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.

PONE-D-22-07117R1

Compliance with smoke-free legislation in public places: An observational study in a Northeast City of Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

Precisely, the response/rebuttal received against the original reviewers' comments are neither satisfactory nor in compliance with the journal requirements. In all, the revised manuscript fails to address the major concerns raised by the reviewers in their original evaluation of the manuscript.

Under such circumstances we regret that your manuscript cannot be further considered for revision or consideration for publication.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Kind regards,

Koustubh Panda, M. Tech., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: My comments are not addressed.

Either should have corrected the overall compliance percentages or have given a justification of the method of average used.

**********

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: Muhammad Aasim

**********

[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.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

Compliance with smoke-free legislation in public places: An observational study in a Northeast City of Bangladesh

PONE-D-22-07117R2

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

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,

Aklilu Habte Hailegebireal, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Almost all of the comments and suggestion rised by the reviewers were well addressed and now, i would like to congratulate the authors after declaring that the manuscript is eligible for publication in its current form.

Reviewers' comments: