PONE-D-23-32462An examination of early socioeconomic status and neighborhood disadvantage as independent predictors of antisocial behavior: a longitudinal adoption studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gresko,

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.

I have received the report of the reviewers. You can find below their coments. The manuscript needs a MAYOR REVISION.

I recommend that the authors carefully address the major and minor comments outlined above and provide a revised version of the manuscript. It would be helpful if the authors include a detailed response letter indicating how each comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, to make sure that the manuscript adheres to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements, please, check the “Instructions for the authors” document: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-financial-disclosure-statement

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 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,

Bárbara Oliván-Blázquez, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

 Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: 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). 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.  Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please seehttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.  5. Please include a copy of Table S16 in Supporting Information which you refer to in your text on page 23.

[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: Yes

**********

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: No

**********

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: This study shares important information about the potential impact of socioeconomic status on children's psychological health.

An extensive review of the topic has been carried out as a background, however, reviewing the bibliography used, I consider that it would be necessary to incorporate more current existing bibliography. It is true that it is a project started in 1975, but if the purpose is to give it scope and provide us with evidence of the present, it would be necessary to incorporate more recent information.

On the other hand, in Line 46, if "" is part of the objective of the study, I do not consider it so relevant to put this information at the beginning of the introduction without having given justifying arguments.

Methodologically, it is a study that uses very complex statistical analyses. However, I have doubts about this methodology:

--There is a lack of a contribution of ethical considerations in methodology, which specifies the ethical committee and how the data have been treated, which in this study precisely involving minors has to be very well argued.

-Line 160 indicates that they come from data from a longitudinal study. started in 1975 and recruited as indicated on line 171 until 1987.

Being a longitudinal study, it is not indicated if or when these people were recruited. Were they monitored during the recruitment period?

Reviewing the articles you cite (Plomin and DeFries (55) and Rhea et al. (49). ), they also do not specify when follow-up evaluations are done.

On the other hand, line 191 specifies that the data has been accessed in 2021.

I consider that it would be necessary to better explain what date the data presented in this manuscript corresponds to.

In measures, a description of the sample has been made in terms of the socioeconomic variables (From line 202 to 221, including table 1), of the Neighborhood disadvantage variables (Line 242-246). I consider this information provided to be not so relevant in methodology but rather as presentation and description of the sample at the beginning of the results section.

As in the introduction, an extensive search has been carried out in the discussion, but also outdated in terms of publication dates.

Reviewer #2: General Assessment:

The introduction effectively addresses various aspects related to Antisocial Behavior (ASB), focusing on potential environmental predictors such as parental socioeconomic status and neighborhood disadvantage. It explores the associations between socioeconomic status (SES), neighborhood disadvantage (ND), and ASB across different genders and types of antisocial behaviors. Additionally, the introduction highlights the use of adoption studies to differentiate between passive genetic influences (passive rGE) and environmental mediation in understanding ASB. The topic is highly relevant to the field, and the research question is well-defined. The study investigated the influence of early socioeconomic status (SES) and neighborhood disadvantage (ND) on antisocial behavior (ASB) using a longitudinal adoption design. The research, based on data from the Colorado Adoption Project, found that lower SES was a significant predictor of ASB in nonadoptive families, while ND did not show a significant association with ASB. The study did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the genetic versus environmental factors influencing the relationship between SES, ND, and ASB, as associations were not consistently significant across sex or adoptive status. However, in nonadopted individuals, lower SES was consistently associated with an increased risk of ASB, aligning with previous research findings.

First of all, to make sure that the manuscript adheres to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements, please, check the “Instructions for the authors” document:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-financial-disclosure-statement

Apart from that, please consider the below comments to strengthen the study as reported, which reflect my responses to general checklists:

Major Comments:

• Line 182. In terms of racial diversity, could you provide more information on the distribution within the five reported categories OR whether there were any notable differences in outcomes based on race?

• Line 200. The paragraph mentions that only paternal occupational status was examined due to limited mothers working outside the home at the study's initiation. Could you provide more context on this decision and its potential impact on the comprehensiveness of the SES assessment?

• Line 259. The decision to conduct confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for examining aggression, delinquency, and overall Antisocial Behavior (ASB) is mentioned. Could you provide insights into the specific reasons or theoretical justifications for choosing CFA over exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in this study?

• Line 476. The mention of potential changes in SES and ND in later childhood or adolescence raises questions about the dynamics of these factors over time. Could you discuss how these potential changes might influence the study's results and interpretations, and suggest ways to address this limitation in future research?

Minor Comments:

• In line 260, page 13. There is a symbol that is not displayed well. Same in line 280, 299.

Overall, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the scientific community. With appropriate revisions, it could be considered suitable for publication in Plos One.

Recommendation:

I recommend that the authors carefully address the major and minor comments outlined above and provide a revised version of the manuscript. It would be helpful if the authors include a detailed response letter indicating how each comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

**********

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: Fárima Méndez-López

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.

An examination of early socioeconomic status and neighborhood disadvantage as independent predictors of antisocial behavior: a longitudinal adoption study

PONE-D-23-32462R1

Dear Dr. Gresko,

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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Bárbara Oliván-Blázquez, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Shelley Gresko,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for being published in Pthe journal Plos One.

The authors have the responded to the reviewers' comments, and the manuscript has the clarity, quality, and innovation to be published in Plos One.

congratulations.

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 #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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: The author has addressed all the requested comments, allowing a better understanding of the manuscript for reading by any public interested in the topic.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Fátima Méndez-López

Reviewer #2: Yes: Alejandra Aguilar-Latorre

**********