Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2024
Decision Letter - Md. Feroz Kabir, Editor

PONE-D-24-11202Prevalence of Lumbar disc herniation and its associated factors: a cross-sectional study in GansuPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

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 Sep 29 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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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:

a. 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].”

b. 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/

6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please submit the revised version as per the reviewer's comments within one month.

[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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Prevalence of Lumbar disc herniation and its associated factors: a cross-sectional study in Gansu." This manuscript addresses an important public health issue by providing valuable epidemiological data on the prevalence of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and its associated factors in Gansu, a region with unique geographic and demographic characteristics. The study's findings contribute significantly to our understanding of LDH and offer insights that could inform effective prevention and intervention strategies in similar regions.

Abstract:

Background and Objective:

Comment: The objective is clearly stated. However, the first sentence could be rephrased for better readability: "The prevalence rate of LDH and its influencing factors in Gansu is unclear. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of LDH and its influencing factors in Gansu."

Methods:

Comment: The methods section is concise and clear. Ensure that the sentence "A stratified multi-stage random sampling method was used obtain representative samples" includes the missing "to" after "used."

Results:

Comment: The results section is detailed but should be made more concise. For example: "The total number of surveyed individuals was 4545, with a prevalence rate of 22.77% for LDH."

Conclusion:

Comment: The conclusion is clear but could be slightly rephrased for clarity: "The prevalence of LDH was high, varying significantly with latitude, gender, and nationality, indicating potential lifestyle and demographic influences."

Introduction:

Comment: The introduction provides a good background but could be more focused.

Grammar: Correct "e.g.," to "e.g.," and ensure all citations are properly formatted.

Content: The statement "As Gansu is located in Northwest China, with a complex geographic location, variable climate, and unbalanced socioeconomic development" could be split into two sentences for clarity.

Materials and Methods:

Study Population:

Comment: The study population section is comprehensive. However, the sampling process description can be more concise.

Grammar: Correct "used obtain" to "used to obtain."

Data Collection and Definition:

Comment: This section is detailed but ensure consistency in listing variables (e.g., "Gender (male or female)" and "age (<=35 years, 35-49 years, 50-64 years ≥ 65 years)").

Grammar: Correct "central obesity as" to "central obesity, as."

Statistical Methods:

Comment: The statistical methods section is clear and appropriate. Ensure all terms (e.g., "Mann–Whitney U-test") are consistently formatted.

Results:

Comment: The results section is thorough but could benefit from clearer subheadings and more concise text.

Grammar: Ensure consistency in using past tense for describing results (e.g., "The prevalence of LDH was different in different latitudes and cities").

Tables and Figures:

Comment: Consider providing a brief description of each figure/table in the text.

Discussion:

Comment: The discussion is comprehensive but could be more focused on the key findings and their implications.

Grammar: Correct "high prevalence rate and a high disability rate in both developing and developed countries[3]," to "high prevalence and disability rates in both developing and developed countries[3]."

Content: Highlight the significance of key findings more prominently and discuss potential mechanisms and implications in greater detail.

Conclusion:

Comment: The conclusion is clear but could be slightly expanded to include practical recommendations based on the findings.

References:

General Comments:

Comment: The manuscript has several grammatical issues that need to be addressed for better readability. Consider proofreading or using a professional editing service.

Examples:

Correct "latitude –high latitude (OR=2.250)" to "latitude – high latitude (OR=2.250)"

Correct "unknow" to "unknown."

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

"The authors aim to investigate the prevalence of Lumbar Disc Herniation (LDH) and its associated factors in Gansu, a region where this information is currently lacking. I appreciate the effort that has gone into this study. However, I must point out several significant concerns that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. As it stands, the paper does not meet the quality standards required for publication in this journal.

One of the most significant limitations of this study lies in the method used to diagnose LDH. The reliance on self-reported symptoms, where patients simply indicate the presence or absence of LDH, is a major concern. This approach is highly subjective, as many individuals may attribute any type of back or leg pain to LDH, regardless of the actual underlying cause. Conversely, patients with a previous LDH diagnosis might experience current symptoms unrelated to their herniated disc. Consequently, this methodology raises doubts about the accuracy of the LDH diagnoses and the reliability of the results in identifying associated factors.

Given this methodological limitation, I am not confident that the study's results can accurately explain the factors associated with LDH. The current approach undermines the validity of the findings and limits the study's contribution to the field.

Reviewer #3: The authors showed great understanding of the subject matter. The authors showed impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution to the subject matter. However, the manuscript need to well written to make it easier to read.

**********

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: Nuray ALACA

Reviewer #3: 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.

Revision 1

Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the chance to refine our manuscript. We express our gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful and valuable feedback on this manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our work. Every comment and suggestion has been meticulously reviewed, and we have implemented the following modifications to address the raised concerns, all highlighted in yellow within the text. A detailed explanation is provided. We trust that the revised version meets the standards for publication in your esteemed journal.

Reviewer#1;

1、Abstract: Background and Objective:Comment: The objective is clearly stated. However, the first sentence could be rephrased for better readability: "The prevalence rate of LDH and its influencing factors in Gansu is unclear. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of LDH and its influencing factors in Gansu."

Reply: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to improve the clarity of the opening sentence. We have revised the sentence as follows:"The prevalence rate of LDH and its influencing factors in Gansu is unclear. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of LDH and influencing factors in Gansu." We believe this revision enhances the readability and clarity of our objective.(lines 17-18)

2、Abstract: Methods: Comment: The methods section is concise and clear. Ensure that the sentence "A stratified multi-stage random sampling method was used obtain representative samples" includes the missing "to" after "used."

Reply: Thank you for your thorough review and helpful comment. We appreciate your attention to detail. The sentence in the methods section has been corrected to include the missing word "to," and now reads: "A stratified multi-stage random sampling method was used to obtain representative samples." We are grateful for your assistance in improving the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript. (line 20)

3、Abstract: Results: Comment: The results section is detailed but should be made more concise. For example: "The total number of surveyed individuals was 4545, with a prevalence rate of 22.77% for LDH."

Reply: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have taken your suggestion to streamline the Results section for greater conciseness. We believe the revised section now more effectively communicates the key findings of our study. (lines 24 -37).

4、Abstract: Conclusion: Comment: The conclusion is clear but could be slightly rephrased for clarity: "The prevalence of LDH was high, varying significantly with latitude, gender, and nationality, indicating potential lifestyle and demographic influences."

Reply: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the conclusion as suggested for improved clarity. The updated conclusion now reads: "The prevalence of LDH was high, varying significantly with latitude, gender, and nationality, indicating potential lifestyle and demographic influences." We appreciate your input in enhancing the clarity of our conclusions. (lines 38-40).

5、Introduction:

Comment: The introduction provides a good background but could be more focused.

Grammar: Correct "e.g.," to "e.g.," and ensure all citations are properly formatted.

Content: The statement "As Gansu is located in Northwest China, with a complex geographic location, variable climate, and unbalanced socioeconomic development" could be split into two sentences for clarity.

Reply: Thank you for your constructive comments and attention to detail. We have implemented the suggested changes to the Introduction section to enhance focus and clarity. Specifically:

�The phrase "e.g.," has been corrected to "e.g.," (line 54)

�All citations have been reviewed and formatted correctly.

�The statement regarding Gansu's geographic and socioeconomic context has been split into two sentences for improved readability. (lines 62-65)

We appreciate your guidance in refining the Introduction to better convey the background and context of our study.

6、Materials and Methods:

Study Population: Comment: The study population section is comprehensive. However, the sampling process description can be more concise.

Grammar: Correct "used obtain" to "used to obtain."

Reply: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. We have refined the description of the sampling process in the Study Population section to make it more concise. Additionally, we have corrected the phrase "used obtain" to "used to obtain." We appreciate your feedback and are grateful for your help in improving the clarity and efficiency of our manuscript. (lines 89-100)

7、Data Collection and Definition:

Comment: This section is detailed but ensure consistency in listing variables (e.g., "Gender (male or female)" and "age (<=35 years, 35-49 years, 50-64 years ≥ 65 years)").

Grammar: Correct "central obesity as" to "central obesity, as."

Reply: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have updated the Data Collection and Definition section to ensure consistency in listing variables, and we have corrected "central obesity as" to "central obesity, as." We appreciate your attention to detail and your help in improving the quality of our manuscript. (lines 105-106, and line 119)

8、Statistical Methods:

Comment: The statistical methods section is clear and appropriate. Ensure all terms (e.g., "Mann–Whitney U-test") are consistently formatted.

Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback and attention to detail. We have reviewed the statistical methods section to ensure consistent formatting of all terms, such as "Mann–Whitney U-test." We appreciate your guidance in maintaining the accuracy and consistency of our manuscript. ( line 127)

9、Results:

Comment: The results section is thorough but could benefit from clearer subheadings and more concise text.

Grammar: Ensure consistency in using past tense for describing results (e.g., "The prevalence of LDH was different in different latitudes and cities").

Reply: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the Results section to include clearer subheadings and have streamlined the text for conciseness. Additionally, we have ensured consistency in using the past tense to describe the results, for example, "The prevalence of LDH was different in different latitudes and cities." We appreciate your suggestions in improving the clarity and readability of our manuscript. (lines 133-164)

10、Tables and Figures:

Comment: Consider providing a brief description of each figure/table in the text.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to provide brief descriptions of each figure and table within the text. We have incorporated these descriptions in the Results section to better contextualize the data presented.

We believe these additions will enhance the clarity and readability of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your helpful comments.

11、Discussion:

Comment: The discussion is comprehensive but could be more focused on the key findings and their implications.

Grammar: Correct "high prevalence rate and a high disability rate in both developing and developed countries[3]," to "high prevalence and disability rates in both developing and developed countries[3]."

Content: Highlight the significance of key findings more prominently and discuss potential mechanisms and implications in greater detail.

Reply: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the Discussion section to better focus on the key findings and their implications. Specifically, we have:

�Highlighted the significance of the main findings more prominently.

�Expanded the discussion on potential mechanisms and implications.

�Corrected the sentence to read, "high prevalence and disability rates in both developing and developed countries[3]."

We appreciate your guidance in enhancing the focus and depth of our discussion.. (lines 105-106, and line 119)

12、Conclusion:

Comment: The conclusion is clear but could be slightly expanded to include practical recommendations based on the findings.

Reply: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have updated the Data Collection and Definition section to ensure consistency in listing variables, and we have corrected "central obesity as" to "central obesity, as." We appreciate your attention to detail and your help in improving the quality of our manuscript. (lines 105-106, and line 119)

Reviewer #2:

"The authors aim to investigate the prevalence of Lumbar Disc Herniation (LDH) and its associated factors in Gansu, a region where this information is currently lacking. I appreciate the effort that has gone into this study. However, I must point out several significant concerns that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. As it stands, the paper does not meet the quality standards required for publication in this journal.

One of the most significant limitations of this study lies in the method used to diagnose LDH. The reliance on self-reported symptoms, where patients simply indicate the presence or absence of LDH, is a major concern. This approach is highly subjective, as many individuals may attribute any type of back or leg pain to LDH, regardless of the actual underlying cause. Conversely, patients with a previous LDH diagnosis might experience current symptoms unrelated to their herniated disc. Consequently, this methodology raises doubts about the accuracy of the LDH diagnoses and the reliability of the results in identifying associated factors.

Given this methodological limitation, I am not confident that the study's results can accurately explain the factors associated with LDH. The current approach undermines the validity of the findings and limits the study's contribution to the field.

Reply: Thank you for your detailed review and valuable feedback. We appreciate your concerns regarding the method used to diagnose Lumbar Disc Herniation (LDH) in our study. To address your concerns, we would like to clarify our diagnostic approach:

The diagnosis of LDH in our study was not based solely on self-reported symptoms. Instead, we followed the diagnostic criteria outlined in the 2020 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation established by the Spinal Surgery Group and Orthopedic Rehabilitation Group of the Chinese Society of Orthopaedics. Specifically, all participants underwent CT or MRI examinations, and the diagnosis of LDH was confirmed by combining these imaging results with the patient’s medical history, symptoms, and physical signs. This methodology ensures a more accurate and reliable identification of LDH cases.

As mentioned in our Methods section (lines 98-99):

"The diagnosis of LDH was made by combining medical history with the diagnostic criteria proposed by the Spinal Surgery Group and Orthopedic Rehabilitation Group of the Chinese Society of Orthopaedics in 2020. All initial screening subjects were required to undergo CT or MRI examinations, and the diagnosis of LDH was confirmed based on the combination of disease history, symptoms, and physical signs."

We hope this clarification addresses your concerns about the diagnostic approach and reassures you of the validity of our findings.

Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Reviewer #3:

The authors showed great understanding of the subject matter. The authors showed impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution to the subject matter. However, the manuscript need to well written to make it easier to read.

Reply: Thank you for your positive assessment and constructive feedback. We are pleased to hear that you found our understanding of the subject matter and the empirical evidence presented to be strong and original.

We have taken your comments regarding the writing quality very seriously and have revised the manuscript to improve readability and clarity. We believe these changes will make the article more accessible and easier to follow.

Thank you once again for your valuable input and for helping us enhance the quality of our manuscript.

We extend our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their meticulous examination of our manuscript and for offering insightful feedback that has substantially enhanced its quality. We have thoroughly considered all comments and have implemented the necessary revisions to address the concerns raised. We trust that these modifications have sufficiently addressed the reviewers' suggestions and we welcome any further comments or recommendations.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work. We believe that the revised manuscript now provides a more accurate and comprehensive presentation of our research.

Sincerely,

Jihong Hu

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviews.docx
Decision Letter - Md. Feroz Kabir, Editor

Prevalence of Lumbar disc herniation and its associated factors: a cross-sectional study in Gansu

PONE-D-24-11202R1

Dear Jihong Hu,

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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Md. Feroz Kabir, Editor

PONE-D-24-11202R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

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. Md. Feroz Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .