PONE-D-23-17327Assessing the pattern of key factors on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh: evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2007 to 2017-18PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akter,

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 Feb 16 2024 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,

Mohammad Nayeem Hasan

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. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

Additional Editor Comments:

Manuscript ID PONE-D-23-17327 entitled "Assessing the pattern of key factors on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh: evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2007 to 2017-18" which you submitted to the PLOS ONE, has been reviewed and will be reconsidered for publication after the completion of the major revisions as noted. The comments of two reviewers are included at the bottom of this letter. My attempts at obtaining some other reviewers to improve your paper were not successful. Rather than postpone the review process further, I have decided to serve as the 3rd reviewer to increase the quality of this paper.

The paper investigated significant factors of women’s empowerment and at the same time, assessed the pattern of potential factors affecting women’s empowerment in Bangladesh using four cross-sectional waves of Bangladesh Demographic and Health Surveys (2007, 2011, 32 2014, and 2017-18) data. Despite being a significant concern for Bangladesh, this topic has already received considerable attention from numerous earlier and recently published studies.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2015.1051657

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/8/e049167.abstract

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12905-020-00952-4

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JHR-11-2020-0559/full/html

The purpose of the study has also been used in the past to explore comparable issues utilizing earlier data on Bangladesh. As a result, the paper's main original addition appears to be its comparison between different survey data, and its conclusions largely—and not surprisingly—reflect those of previous research. The paper needs to be thoroughly proofread by a professional or expert. It is not written to a high degree for academic writing, and there are several grammatical/spelling errors, which frequently make claims and arguments less clear. Additionally, the authors ought to eliminate any similarities from this work. Numerous times, the way that statistical results are interpreted is also wrong. The introduction fails to effectively justify the need for studying the issue, tables and results are not focused on the title, many unusual tables and results are included in the main manuscript, and the paper's findings by themselves are insufficient to support the conclusions.

Below are some comments with more information:

Abstract

The methods, results, and conclusion need to be re-written. Please check previously published papers from PLOS ONE.

Introduction

Overall, the introduction is so long. Please reduce some text or concise it. In many places of the introduction, citation is needed. Please check and provide the appropriate citation.

Lines 117-118: “At the same time, an evaluation of women's empowerment in Bangladesh over the past 10 years, from 2007 to 2017-18 has also been observed here.” As you compared 4 surveys and it is not time series data, so, 10 years explanation in the title and objective is not acceptable.

Please specify the research gap. Why this study is necessary and so on. I didn’t find it in your introduction.

Data and Methodology

Data

Table 1 is not needed here as all procedures are shared on the BDHS report. Those who want to check that they will check in the reports. Rather, it is better to show a flow chart of how you reached your final sample (every step of inclusion-exclusion)

Outcome variable

Lines 163-165: “We proposed a total of nine questions which were classified into two broad dimensions; household decision-making and attitudes toward wife beating”. Is it the authors' proposal or followed some published papers, please re-check it.

Lines 179-183: “For creating the women’s empowerment index (WEI), principal component analysis (PCA) has been used with all nine indicators (4 decisions and 5 reasons), where the first principal component was regarded as the women’s empowerment score (WES). The WES was further broken down into 3 quantiles; labeled low, middle, and high for domains below the first, in between the first and second, and above the second quantile, respectively.”. Please explain more about this procedure. How many variables remained after PCA, how did the authors do that, and what’s the methodology of doing it? How did you categorize that on what basis, etc.?

Lines 183-186: The author should write “Finally, our preferred outcome metric is the score index with three ordered categories (i.e., low, medium, and high), where these categories indicate order-wise how empowered a woman is (i.e., low means women have low empowerment)”. Only citation is not appropriate here. As you did your own PCA, you should have a different score from the others. So, please explain your score to categorize them.

Covariates

Lines 191-195: “Based on some previous works of literature, the covariates included in this study are age at first marriage, spousal age gap, respondent’s education level, education gap, respondent’s current working status, number of living children, religion, number of household members, division, place of residence, media exposure, NGO membership, wealth index, husband’s occupation, relationship with household head, and sex of household head.” Please cite all of the previous works after those lines.

Table 2 is not enough to explain the details about covariates. Please cite the appropriate BDHS methodological reports to explain the categories. Or if you follow other reports to categorize them, you can also make them in citation. To remove any confusion, follow this: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15617-8

Statistical analysis

Please provide some model evaluation techniques (AIC, BIC, AUROC, and others…..) to justify that you used an appropriate model to explain your results. In addition, explain about level of significance in statistical analysis.

Ordinal logistic regression model

No need to explain in detail the ordinal logistic regression model, as it is a common method to us. The authors can explain the application of it.

Please explain why the authors used two statistical software, if you just need two software, please explain which statistical analysis performs with which software.

Results

There are some issues with the representations and interpretations of the results.

Univariate analysis

Table 3 is not appropriate in this paper. Please represent Table 3 with the outcome variable and show the P-value in this same table. We need to see the change in women's empowerment situation overtime over the socio-demographic variables. The explanation of Table 3 is too large. Please reduce it by a significant variable. Explain only significant variables by performing a chi-square test on it.

Bivariate analysis

Lines 280-283: “In the bivariate analysis, an attempt has been made to out find the significant exposure factors to women’s empowerment. To evaluate how much a woman's background characteristics influence her level of domestic empowerment in Bangladesh, Pearson Chi-square test was applied.” Please remove these lines from here, because it is a methodological sentence.

Merge Table 4 in Table 3. No need to show a chi-square test value. Show only the P-value (from the chi-square test) for significant tests.

Multivariate analysis

Instead of “multivariate analysis”, please explain it as multivariable analysis.

The authors said before in lines 207-208; “The covariates that were significantly associated with the outcome variable, have been included in the regression model”. However in regression analysis, the authors include all variables.

The representation of Table 5 needs to be followed in a standard format. Please follow this paper’s Table 3 and Table 4 reporting style: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242864

Use <0.001 when it is less than 0.001/<0.01. Explain the P-value as 3 decimal points.

It also seems that the author didn’t maintain the serial of explanation of Table 5 or vice versa. Please, to catch the reader’s interest please keep the flow similar to the table and interpretation.

No need to explain whether it is a 1% or 5% significant level. You should follow only one level of significance when you explain.

The interpretation of table 5 is also very long. Please explain only key significant variables and key findings.

Discussion

The discussion part should be rewritten and should focus on outcome variables. It will be better to discuss the information of supplementary tables and be more specific on the outcome variable. The authors discuss the reason for each association in the discussion part.

Major findings of this study

All explanations of figures need to be replaced in the results section. The quality and the representation of the figure are not good.

Conclusion

The conclusion needs to be more specific and highlight key findings. This should support the result. They are suggested to provide less discussion in the conclusion part. I will suggest providing no citation in the conclusion part.

You can follow the below publication with BDHS/MICS data, try to represent in these styles:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15617-8

https://aidsrestherapy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12981-022-00495-8

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.985445/full

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242864

These suggestions aim to enhance the study's coherence, precision, and informative value, ensuring it provides valuable insights.

Reviewers' comments:

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: N/A

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: Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. Over all is sounds nicely written, constructed, based on many data, with right methodology, constructive discussion and relevant references.and contribute to the literature. I recommend for publication without any major revisions.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Your manuscript is technically sound, and the data supported the conclusions.

Empowering women in Bangladesh is not only a moral obligation, but also a crucial step towards creating a more just and prosperous society. Your study analyzed data from four cross-sectional waves of the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Surveys to identify the factors that contribute to women's empowerment. And found that education, employment, higher wealth index, media exposure, NGO membership, and urban residency all significantly increased the likelihood of women experiencing empowerment.

The statistical analysis had been performed appropriately.

The principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to create women's empowerment index. The Chi-square test was used to assess the unadjusted association between the selected covariates and women's empowerment. And the proportional odds model (POM) was applied to determine the adjusted association of the selected covariates with women's empowerment.

All data underlying the findings in your manuscript are fully available for readers.

Finally, the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Sincerely,

Beisan Ali

**********

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: Yes: Beisan A. Mohammad

**********

[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.

Assessing the pattern of key factors on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh: evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2007 to 2017-18

PONE-D-23-17327R1

Dear Dr. Sahera Akter,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Mohammad Nayeem Hasan

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: 1. Although the authors have addressed all of the comments, there are certain instances of grammatical and spelling errors in the manuscript. As such, the authors are advised to proofread the manuscript and make relevant corrections.

2. Abstract, results section, lines (51-54): “For instance, women who completed secondary education in 2007, 2011, 2014, and 2017-18, respectively have 14.4%, 31.8%, 24.6%, and 39.6% higher odds of having empowerment compared to those who were uneducated.” The authors should consider removing the aforementioned lines from the abstract as these are redundant.

3. In the limitations section, the authors mention that due to insufficient data, certain covariates were not considered. Could the authors briefly mention those covariates, highlighting the need for further research in those areas.

Reviewer #4: Dear editor and authors,

The authors addressed the identify factors contributing to women’s empowerment in Bangladesh. They proposed four waves of BDHS data (2007, 2011, 2014, and 2017-18) to assess temporal changes in covariates impacting women’s empowerment. They approach to decision-making and decision-making problems toward wife beating household. Later, they evaluated the comprehensive analysis of evolving factors

Overall, the authors presented detailed information of their motivation and experiment details. The experiment results and discussion support authors' claim. The entire manuscript is well described with scientific soundness on an interval-valued picture fuzzy context. Notations, formulations, tables, materials and methods, and statements of practical results are readable. Discussion, conclusions and limitations are correct.

After checking the revised version of this manuscript. I am satisfied with the efforts the authors made in revising this manuscript. Most concerns raised by reviewers have been addressed, but there are still some errors. The current revised manuscript looks good and could be accepted to publish on “PLOS ONE”. Make the following comments:

• Make the “Abstract” section as one paragraph. Do not use the words “Background”, “Methods”, “Results” and “Conclusion”.

Reviewer #5: If the affiliations are the same for all authors, please remove duplicate entries from the affiliation section.

Rewrite the beginning of the abstract to ensure sentence harmony.

Insert citations at the end of the 1st paragraph, 2nd paragraph, and the last paragraph of the introduction.

As previously suggested, tables have been removed from the manuscript.

The manuscript now includes an explanation about PCA.

Citations have been added to Table 1, improving the referencing within the manuscript.

The results and discussion sections have been updated as per the reviewer's suggestions.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Dr. Muhammad Asad

**********