PONE-D-22-23985Alcohol policies in India: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Velleman,

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.

Your manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are appended below. The reviewers have identified the methodology reported in this study as needing elaboration regarding details of the protocol. In particular, Reviewer #3 has questioned the end date of the literature search in the context of the objective to assess the impact on societal outcomes. Please ensure you address each of the reviewers' comments when revising your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 24 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,

Hugh Cowley

Staff 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. 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript can be accepted

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

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: Yes

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: 1. Scoping review methodology should be clearly stated including reporting checklists(guideline)

2. Eligiblity criteria for the selection of previously existed alcohol policies should be clearly stated.

3. You have to use the updated references, i.e reference 14,24,31 and 32

Reviewer #2: The review is comprehensive and methodology is sound. But the authors are suggested to cite references in the texts of results section in addition to S1 Table. It is also needed to check spelling at the line 174 for surveillance and confirm the phrase "abv or as proof" at line 340.

Reviewer #3: A critical policy review. This a reasonable effort from the authors, as covering a large amount of grey literature on the topic, is a tough job.

The major drawback is not repeating the academic search after 2017. In 6 years, as the authors pointed out and also mentioned the impact of COVID-19, there has been research on the impact of the lack of alcohol policy during COVID-19. Authors should consider repeating the academic search.Though you have stated, "because the sole reason for doing that search was to identify policies, and we considered that the updating of the policy search described below would reveal any new or revised policies" But, your objective also includes impact on societal outcomes, how will you know that societal outcomes just from policy documents?

1. Although the authors stated the objective of the impact of societal outcomes, I could only see a little information in the results or discussion in a structured way.

2. You found significant gaps. How did you find the gaps? What parameter is used? It is unclear to the reader how the authors concluded.

3. Where does the country stand on the alcohol policy index based on the author's assessment, is there a change that the authors noted based on the assessment from previous studies? Ref: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040151

4. Leadership, awareness and commitment: What about NAPDDR 2018 (national action plan on drug demand reduction 2018), RPWD 2016 including mental illness (also substance use).

5. Health services’ response: What about DTC program, ATF, Ayushman bharath health and wellness centres, Nasha mukht Bharath Abayan?

6. Under community action, NAPDDR 2018 use CLPI community lead peer intervention https://grants-msje.gov.in/omrunningcpli

7. Drinking and driving poilcies and counter measures: Ban on alcohol sales 500m on national highways: https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/circulars_document/SR-2017.06.01-Ban%20on%20liquor%20shops%20along%20National%20Highways.pdf

8. Under illicit alcohol: what about unrecorded alcohol use and related policies? https://www.iard.org/getattachment/fdd90791-41cb-4bd3-98f0-555fbf9818f8/unrecorded-alcohol-in-india.pdf

9. Under monitoring and surveillance: Government of India monitors, regularly updates the excise related crime and enforcement process as a part of supply reduction https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII-2021/CII_2021Volume%201.pdf

10. Finally, the overall discussion appears towards the overall (hybrid) system, maybe gaps in comparison to global standards, deviation or less evidence informed policies needs to be depicted. Further, there is a significant amount of grey literature available, authors should be congratulated for thier efforts in covering such a vast literature, a final round of consultation with policy experts might improve further.

Best wishes.

**********

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: Agmas Wassie Abate

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha

**********

[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.

Alcohol policies in India: a scoping review

PONE-D-22-23985R1

Dear Dr.Vellemann

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,

George Kuryan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Inclusion of citation in text is found in revised version and thanks for your efforts. Spelling errors are also corrected according to my previous comment. Although you mention as line 186 and 370, corrected words are found in line 176 and 352. There is no additional comment at this review for R1 and hope for successful publication.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all the comments adequately.

Some suggestions for consideration

1. The focus of NAPDDR is not just the NDPS; it is also implemented in the background of the Central sector scheme for alcohol. Centres like IRCAs also cater to people with alcohol use disorders. As this paper potentially impacts policymakers and stakeholders involved in service delivery, a mention of NAPDDR might be useful.

2. RPWD talks about mental illness, as the definition of mental illness according to MHCA includes substance use, and RPWD includes substance use (although they explicitly don't mention about it).

3. ATF doesn't come under DDAP. It's under MOSJE. Similarly, there are differences in DTC and DAC. Mentioning these different measures from the state might be helpful.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha

**********