The effects of substance use on non-communicable diseases among older adults aged 60 and above in the North-eastern States of India

Sasanka Boro; Nandita Saikia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307603

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 14, 2023
12 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-21892The Effects of Substance Use on Non-Communicable Diseases among Older Adults Aged 60 and Above in the North-eastern States of IndiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Boro, 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 Jan 26 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, Chandan Kumar, Ph.D. 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 [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: 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: 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: To The Authors The Authors prepared the present communication based on the secondary data 'Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI Wave-I, 2017–18)', which was carried out in 35 States/UTs. Why the authors have taken data for only Northeastern states? The authors looked into the factors responsible for high incidence or prevalence of NCDs including tobacco smoking, substance use, physical inactivity etc. Methodology There is need to obtain the data with a specific objective, which is not given in the manuscript. Several disease variable were addressed here, but there no specific definitions for each these variables In the introduction, it is given like India is a low income country. In fact, India is not low income country. This may be deleted. India is lower middle income country. How monthly per capita income was collected, which may not be always correct Quantity, frequency and duration of smoking, substance use, alcohol consumption is very important to estimate the risk, but this kind of data is not available - only except yes or No. The major drawback in this database, no metabolic biomarkers data to support risk/association Some of the editorial corrections needed here and there in the text All the dependent variables collected in the main survey was based on the reported data, which may not be a correct data. At least the data collection on morbidity/mortality should be based on the medical reports/statutory reports Discussion: May be pruned to precise The weakness and strengths of the study needs to be mentioned Conclusions The conclusions should be focused and should be based on the data Tables Table 1 & 2 may be clubbed Reviewer #2: 1. You can add new tobacco, alcohol, and drugs related policies in the policy section. 2. There has been requirement to highlight the gaps in the former works and say clearly why you are focusing in this field. 3. I think adding the mathematical formulae of Logistic regression would give the study a statistical robustness. 4. In your abstract please edit the results section and explain the abbreviations which are entered in your whole text. 5. Your method part needs to rewrite in extended form. 6. Need to write justification behind the applied statistical analysis. Add justification as of why you have used binary logistic regression. 7. Discussion part need to add some powerful previous works and compare the differences and discuss on them. 8. Add the international classification of disease codes for the diseases that you have selected 9. Literature review and rationale of the need to be improve. Please read this article and cite it in literaure review section (https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2022.2146014). 10. How the authors addressed the contribution of other confounding variables in the outcomes of the study. 11. there are several grammatical errors, which need to be fixed before publication. 12. Presentaion of the odds ration should be standard. 13. Please correct it ( line 320, St’s were less likely to consume all kinds) 14. Please try to avoid We, I, you etc. from the manuscript (We found that the most important correlates) 15. I suggests authors to rewrite the discussion section based on key findings only, how its similar or dissimilar with previous study and why? 16. In your study Muslim and SC sample is very low as compared to their counterpart, the results could be biased. 17. A age group specific analyses could be helpful to understand the result better way. It we see the previous results with increasing age the odds of your selected outcome variables is higher than their counterparts. So you could think about it. ****** 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: Avula Laxmaiah, Former Senior Public Health Nutrition scientist, ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition Reviewer #2: Yes: Margubur Rahaman ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r001
Revision 1
9 Feb 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: To The Authors The Authors prepared the present communication based on the secondary data 'Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI Wave-I, 2017–18)', which was carried out in 35 States/UTs. Why the authors have taken data for only Northeastern states? Response: We selected the north-eastern states based on previous literature. As indicated in the north-east sub-section on page 4, prior research has identified a higher prevalence in this region. The authors looked into the factors responsible for high incidence or prevalence of NCDs including tobacco smoking, substance use, physical inactivity etc. Response: Certainly, as outlined in paragraph 3 of the introduction section on page 3, line 121, these factors are acknowledged in the literature as significant contributors to the onset of non-communicable diseases in older age. Therefore, we have duly taken these four elements into consideration Methodology There is need to obtain the data with a specific objective, which is not given in the manuscript. Response: Certainly, we have added the specific objective at the end of introduction section in the page number 2 line 128. Several disease variable were addressed here, but there no specific definitions for each these variables Response: We have added the definition each of our disease(dependent) variable in the dependent variable section of methodology part in the page number 6 line 243. In the introduction, it is given like India is a low income country. In fact, India is not low income country. This may be deleted. India is lower middle income country. Response: Certainly, we have corrected the mistake in the conclusion section of the abstract in line 72 of page no. 2. How monthly per capita income was collected, which may not be always correct Response: We have added how MPCE quintile in LASI has been calculated in the socio-economic and demographic variables section of methodology part in the page number 6 line 218. Quantity, frequency and duration of smoking, substance use, alcohol consumption is very important to estimate the risk, but this kind of data is not available - only except yes or No. Response: Yes, we have mentioned this into the limitations section in or study in page number 11 of line 465. The major drawback in this database, no metabolic biomarkers data to support risk/association Response: Certainly, we have mentioned this into the limitations section in or study in page number 11 of line 463. Some of the editorial corrections needed here and there in the text. Response: We have edited the manuscript and checked for editorial errors. All the dependent variables collected in the main survey was based on the reported data, which may not be a correct data. At least the data collection on morbidity/mortality should be based on the medical reports/statutory reports Response: Yes, this problem statement has been discussed in the limitation section in page number 11. Discussion: May be pruned to precise Response: Yes, we have edited the discussion section. The weakness and strengths of the study needs to be mentioned Response: Yes, we have given a separate limitation section in page number 11. Conclusions The conclusions should be focused and should be based on the data Response: Yes, the conclusion has been edited and was focused based on our data and findings. Tables Table 1 & 2 may be clubbed Response: Thank you, the distinction between Table 1 and Table 2 lies in their content: Table 1 provides a description of our study variables, while Table 2 focuses on the prevalence of all Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). We made a conscious decision to present them separately to enhance clarity and ensure a more organized presentation of our findings. Reviewer #2: 1. You can add new tobacco, alcohol, and drugs related policies in the policy section. Response: Yes, we have added the COTPA amendment rules in the policy section of page number 10 and line number 419. 2. There has been requirement to highlight the gaps in the former works and say clearly why you are focusing in this field. Response: Yes, we have mentioned this in the north-east India section page number 5 and line number 191. 3. I think adding the mathematical formulae of Logistic regression would give the study a statistical robustness. Response: Yes, we have added the mathematical formulae for binary logistic regression in the statistical analysis section of page number 7 in line number 260. 4. In your abstract please edit the results section and explain the abbreviations which are entered in your whole text. Response: Yes, we have added the abbreviations in the appendix of the manuscript. 5. Your method part needs to rewrite in extended form. Response: Certainly, the method section has been revised to provide concise and clear explanations, facilitating a more straightforward understanding of the study. 6. Need to write justification behind the applied statistical analysis. Add justification as of why you have used binary logistic regression. Response: Yes, we have added the justification behind the usage of binary logistic regression in the statistical analysis section in the page number 6, line number 255. 7. Discussion part need to add some powerful previous works and compare the differences and discuss on them. Response: Yes, we have added few previous studies to felicitate our findings namely: 1. M. A. Kumar MS, Oinam A, Mukherjee D, Kishore K, “Women who use drugs in NorthEast India,” vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 343–349, 2015, [Online]. Available: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southasia//publications/research-studies/FINAL_REPORT.pdf 2. S. P. Marbaniang, H. S. Chungkham, and H. Lhungdim, “A structured additive modeling of diabetes and hypertension in Northeast India,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 1, p. e0262560, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262560. 3. M. K. Gupta, D. A. Nagdeve, D. Mahata, and H. Chaurasia, “Substance Abuse Among Elderly in India: Evidence Based on Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) Wave 1,” Glob. Soc. Welf., pp. 1–7, 2023 4. M. E. Patrick, P. Wightman, R. F. Schoeni, and J. E. Schulenberg, “Socioeconomic status and substance use among young adults: a comparison across constructs and drugs,” J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 772–782, 2012 5. R. K. McHugh, V. R. Votaw, D. E. Sugarman, and S. F. Greenfield, “Sex and gender differences in substance use disorders,” Clin. Psychol. Rev., vol. 66, pp. 12–23, 2018. 8. Add the international classification of disease codes for the diseases that you have selected Response: Certainly, we could have added it but LASI survey does not provide us with the ICD codes hence we would be unable to provide it and hence it has been also added in the limitation section however the variable definition have been added in the dependent variable section of methodology part in the page number 6 and line number 243 for better explanation of the disease variables. 9. Literature review and rationale of the need to be improve. Please read this article and cite it in literaure review section (https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2022.2146014). Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we have added the literature in the north east section to provide rationale to our study in page number 5 in line number 173. 10. How the authors addressed the contribution of other confounding variables in the outcomes of the study. Response: To adjust for confounding variables, confounding factors such as age, education, marital status, monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE), religion etc. were adjusted in the final model. 11. there are several grammatical errors, which need to be fixed before publication. Response: Yes, the manuscript has been re-checked for grammatical errors. 12. Presentation of the odds ration should be standard. Response: I appreciate your feedback and the attention you've given to the presentation of odds ratios in our paper. Your suggestion to adhere to a standard format is duly noted, and I want to express our gratitude for your valuable input. However, after careful consideration, we have deliberately chosen a specific presentation style for the odds ratios in line with the nuances and objectives of our study. We understand that there are various ways to present odds ratios, and we respect the suggestion for a standard format. Yet, we firmly believe that our chosen approach is the most effective for conveying the nuances of our study. 13. Please correct it ( line 320, St’s were less likely to consume all kinds) Response: Thank you for your careful attention, we have corrected the typing error. 14. Please try to avoid We, I, you etc. from the manuscript (We found that the most important correlates) Response: Certainly, we have edited the manuscript and tried to avoid the We and I to the best we can. 15. I suggests authors to rewrite the discussion section based on key findings only, how its similar or dissimilar with previous study and why? Response: Yes, the discussion has been revised to focus on key findings, incorporating previous literature reviews to highlight similarities and differences with prior studies. 16. In your study Muslim and SC sample is very low as compared to their counterpart, the results could be biased. Response: Thank you for the keen observation , the study has been focused in the north-eastern parts of India and according to LASI dataset the sample of Muslim and SC population is low in the region and hence we have added this as one of the limitations in our study. 17. A age group specific analyses could be helpful to understand the result better way. It we see the previous results with increasing age the odds of your selected outcome variables is higher than their counterparts. So you could think about it. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment and suggestion regarding age-specific analyses. I appreciate your attention to detail. While I acknowledge the potential value of age-specific analyses in enhancing our understanding, regrettably, conducting such analyses goes beyond the scope of the current paper. Our primary focus was on associating NCDs with substance use among the elderly itself i.e. 60 and beyond. However, I genuinely appreciate your suggestion, and it is duly noted for future research considerations. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r002
3 May 2024 Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-21892R1The Effects of Substance Use on Non-Communicable Diseases among Older Adults Aged 60 and Above in the North-eastern States of IndiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Boro, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that the revised manuscript still has to undergo a minor modification. Authors are thus advised to go through the comments given in the attached file of the manuscript, and submit the revised version of the manuscript after incorporating the comments/suggestions and undergoing a thorough language editing. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 17 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, Chandan Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Reviewers' comments: Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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) ****** 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: Abstract: Objective: To assess the prevalence of NCDs and strength of association of substance abuse among geriatric population of Northeastern states in India, for the development of preventive strategies, but not for implementation. Methods: Data received from the 'Longitudinal Ageing Study in India' (LASI -wave 1 2017-18) for the present communication (paper), not for the study. Conclusion: Since, high prevalence of hypertension correlated with the high level of substance abuse, require immediate attention to develop an appropriate intervention strategies for its control (substance abuse) and prevention of hypertension. ****** 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: Avula Laxmaiah, Former Director grade scientist, ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r003
Revision 2
19 May 2024 Author Response The abstract has been changed as advised Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r004
25 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-21892R2The Effects of Substance Use on Non-Communicable Diseases among Older Adults aged 60 and above in the North-eastern States of IndiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Boro, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that the manuscript has not yet met PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. There is need for a thorough language (English) editing of the manuscript. Please refer to some of the comments, highlighted texts (in yellow colour), and edits (in track change mode) given in the attached copy of your revised manuscript. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised in the attached copy of the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 09 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, Chandan Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript_Editors comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r005
Revision 3
3 Jul 2024 Author Response Yes we have incorporated all the changes as advised by the editor and checked the figures in PACE. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r006
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar, Editor The Effects of Substance Use on Non-Communicable Diseases among Older Adults aged 60 and above in the North-eastern States of India PONE-D-23-21892R3 Dear Dr. Boro, 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, Chandan Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r007
Formally Accepted
30 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chandan Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-21892R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Boro, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Chandan Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307603.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .