PONE-D-23-17287Face mask use in the city of Chennai, India: Results from three serial cross-sectional surveys, 2021PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sharan,

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 Nov 13 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,

Vijayaprasad Gopichandran

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 financial disclosure: 

"This study has not received any specific funding support. The work was supported by the Intramural fund of ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

3. 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.

4. We note that Figure 1 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:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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].”

(2) 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/

Additional Editor Comments:

Your study is well written. Please carefully go through the peer review reports and make those changes. This will greatly enhance the readability of your paper. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled "Face mask use in the City of Chennai, India: Results from three serial cross-sectional surveys, 2021". The authors have tried to assess face mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chennai. I believe that the manuscript could benefit from the following suggestions:

1. Kindly rewrite the abstract, as the methods mentioned in the abstract is confusing, and please stick to the abstract guidelines specific for Plos One

2. Line 73, which reads "We also documented mask compliance in the city's shopping malls for the third time point (round 5) alone" is not appropriately placed and is confusing. How many rounds were conducted? 3 or 5? Please be specific and modify the statement.

3. Why mention about rounds 1 and 2 from 2020 in this study? when the objective is to estimate compliance with appropriate mask usage at three different time points in 2021?

4. Why were these specific time periods chosen for sampling? the justification for the final round is provided, please provide the rationale and justification for conducting the survey at specific time periods of 2021

5. Why were 32 streets chosen? and how were the 32 chosen from 45,000? what sampling strategy was followed?

6. Pharmacies and religious places had "no entry restrictions?" and thus considered indoor settings.? not even in pharmacies? a personal would insist on mask usage?

7. "We excluded areas with security personnel who insisted on wearing a mask before entry.. Then why include Malls? which mandates mask usage before entry?

8. How was it possible to record the mask usage and compliance among motorcycle riders, who wear helmets?

9. How did the estimates calculate for the population inside the moving bus? how did the data collector collect this information? Were they stationed in the street or inside the bus?

10. Table 1: Round 3 is March 2020? or 2021?

11. When the objective is not to compare with the 2020 estimates, I feel there is no necessity to compare with round 1 and 2 estimates..

12. Please check the referencing style.. eg 2,10,13 are not in Vancouver

13. Please provide clearer images, preferably in TIFF format

14. Why did the study observe higher compliance during July 2021, while the peak was in March - April 2021?

Reviewer #2: I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Face mask use in the City of Chennai, India: Results from three serial cross-sectional surveys, 2021". The study highlights the importance of developing more effective communication strategies on appropriate mask use for older age groups and addressing compliance issues in crowded indoor settings to enhance public health measures during a pandemic. The following are some suggestions that I've considered for the manuscript:

1. The line number 71, which reads “We estimated the compliance with appropriate mask usage in the outdoor and indoor locations of slums and non-slums of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, at three different time points in 2021.We also documented mask compliance in the city's shopping malls for the third time point (round 5) alone.” Please modify the statements for clarification and justify the inclusion of shopping malls in the survey.

2. Also, line number 118 states, “We excluded areas with security personnel who insisted on wearing a mask before entry” please justify the inclusion of shopping malls in the survey as these areas were with strict enforcement for wearing masks.

3.As the objective was to estimate the compliance with appropriate mask usage at three different time points in 2021, justify the comparison of findings from the round 1 and 2 surveys of 2020 in the current study.

4.Line 109 mention, Mask" was defined as any cloth mask, medical mask, or N95 respirator worn over the face. We described appropriate mask use as wearing a mask covering the nose, mouth, and chin and inappropriate use as wearing the mask either below the nose or mouth. When the individual did not wear a mask, we considered it no mask. Cite reference for the same.

5.Line 130, which reads, “We included pedestrians, bicycle riders, motorcycle riders, autorickshaws, and bus passengers, excluding individuals traveling in a car.” How was it feasible/possible to record the mask usage and compliance of helmet-wearing motorcycle riders? as well as the bus passengers inside the bus?

6.Line 145, “We classified the mask compliance in each of the four settings into three categories: appropriate, inappropriate, and no mask, and computed the proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI). But the findings on ‘inappropriate use’ and ‘no mask use’ category were not mentioned.

7.Line 127 states, “Upon reaching the specific tagged location, the data collector would observe the individuals crossing from right to left direction, one individual at a time, and record the individual’s mask compliance. We maintained this directional rule to minimize possible duplication. Also mention the status of the observer as it may lead to duplication of the observation - whether stationary observer measured adherence by passersby, or a mobile observer measured adherence in stationary people.

8.For the south region, the compliance was low in round 1 and 2 whereas it was high in round 3-5, comparing with other regions of the city. Justify the findings.

9.Please check for the year in Table 1 for Round 3. Was it March 2020 or 2021?

10.Please check the reference numbers 2,10 and 13 for its styling with reference to the journal guidelines.

11. Mention about the generalizability of the study findings? Also mention the strengths and limitations.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Face mask use in the city of Chennai, India: Results from three serial cross-sectional surveys, 2021

PONE-D-23-17287R1

Dear Dr. Sharan,

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,

Vijayaprasad Gopichandran

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: