Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 15, 2024
Decision Letter - Pengpeng Ye, Editor

PONE-D-24-28886Spatial-temporal distribution and socioeconomic inequality of low birthweight rate in China from 1992 to 2021 and its predictions to 2030PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. LI,

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 Oct 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,

Pengpeng Ye

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. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. 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: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: 1.The manuscript is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions.

2.The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously.

3.The authors have made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available.

4. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s report

Thank you for inviting me to review this important manuscript. Accept this paper with minor adjustment

Specific comments

Kindly include the keywords of this study

Discussion

Kindly explain the reason for the increment in LBWR in China.

Elaborate more and compare the findings with other Asian countries

Line 239: “…..LBWR has increased in the last 10 years”. Kindly include the reference.

Don’t just discuss the limitations of the study, also add few points regarding the strength

Highlight and discuss what the government has done so far regarding the steady rising of LBWR

Finally, add some recommendations to your conclusion

**********

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: Kassa Demissie Abdi (PhD)

Reviewer #2: Yes: Segun Asaolu

**********

[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(7.12)(1).doc
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer.pdf
Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-24-28886

Spatial-temporal distribution and socioeconomic inequality of low birthweight rate in China from 1992 to 2021 and its predictions to 2030

Reviewer 1

1.The manuscript is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions.

2.The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously.

3.The authors have made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available.

4. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Re: Thank you for the corrections to the English phrases in the article. Keywords have been added and references have been checked. See Tracking Changes manuscript for other revisions.

Reviewer 2

Kindly include the keywords of this study

Re: Add keywords.

Discussion

Kindly explain the reason for the increment in LBWR in China.

Re: The reasons for the increase in LBWR are discussed considerably in paragraphs 3-4 of the Discussion section, with possible factors being the increase in ozone concentration, the increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among pregnancy-age women, the delay in the reproductive age of females, the increase in prenatal complications, the increase in the proportion of alcohol consumption among pregnant women, etc. Pages 7-8, lines 267-304.

Elaborate more and compare the findings with other Asian countries

Re: Added reference 31, which is the most recently published evidence of global trends in LBWR, including most countries worldwide (also including Asia). Unfortunately, except for the data from reference 31 and Korea and Japan provided in the original article, there is little evidence of recent trends from Asia. Page 7, lines 247-251.

Line 239: “…..LBWR has increased in the last 10 years”. Kindly include the reference.

Re: Added references “[19,22-23,30-31]”. Page 7, line 263.

Don’t just discuss the limitations of the study, also add few points regarding the strength

Re: The strengths of this study were added at the end of the discussion. Pages 10-11, lines 397-410.

Highlight and discuss what the government has done so far regarding the steady rising of LBWR

Re: A related discussion has been added to the penultimate paragraph of the Discussion section. Page 10, lines 374-396.

Finally, add some recommendations to your conclusion

Re: Some suggestions have been added to the conclusion section. Page 11, lines 433-441.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Jennifer Tucker, Editor

PONE-D-24-28886R1

Spatio-temporal distribution and socioeconomic inequality of low birthweight rate in China from 1992 to 2021 and its predictions to 2030

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li, I am writing with an update about your submission, "Spatio-temporal distribution and socioeconomic inequality of low birthweight rate in China from 1992 to 2021 and its predictions to 2030" (PONE-D-24-28886).  After this article received an Accept decision you requested several  authorship changes.  The nature, extent and timing of the requests to change the author list call into question whether your manuscript complies with the PLOS Authorship policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship). As such, we are rescinding the Accept decision and rejecting the manuscript.  We may reconsider this submission in the future if a research integrity official at the corresponding author’s institution reviews and provides verification of the article's authors and their contributions. The following documents would need to be provided when resubmitting:a.      Written, signed statements from all contributors, including added/removed authors, confirming that all agree with the article’s author list and contributionsb.      Cover letter that describes the contribution of each author and provides a specific reason why each author was added or removed after initial submissionc.      Formal letter from a research integrity official or equivalent at the corresponding author’s institution, or the institution where the majority of the research was conducted, confirming the author list and stated contributions.d.      Institutional email address for the official responsible for oversight of research and/or research integrity at the corresponding author’s institution.  I am sorry we do not have more positive news, but hope that you understand the reasons why we rejected this submission. Kind regards,Jennifer Tucker, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsComments 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 addressedReviewer #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: YesReviewer #2: Yes**********3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #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: YesReviewer #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: YesReviewer #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: 1. All comments have been addressed.

2. The manuscript is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions.

3. The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously.

4. The authors have made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available.

5. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.Reviewer #2: The author has answered all the questions and comments accordingly, and the manuscript is now ready for publication. Please Kindly Accept this paper**********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: Kassa Demissie Abdi (PhD)Reviewer #2: Yes: Segun Asaolu********** 

[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.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3  

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Manuscript(3)_Rereview.doc
Revision 2

PONE-D-24-28886

Spatial-temporal distribution and socioeconomic inequality of low birthweight rate in China from 1992 to 2021 and its predictions to 2030

Reviewer 1

1.The manuscript is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions.

2.The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously.

3.The authors have made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available.

4. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Re: Thank you for the corrections to the English phrases in the article. Keywords have been added and references have been checked. See Tracking Changes manuscript for other revisions.

Reviewer 2

Kindly include the keywords of this study

Re: Add keywords.

Discussion

Kindly explain the reason for the increment in LBWR in China.

Re: The reasons for the increase in LBWR are discussed considerably in paragraphs 3-4 of the Discussion section, with possible factors being the increase in ozone concentration, the increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among pregnancy-age women, the delay in the reproductive age of females, the increase in prenatal complications, the increase in the proportion of alcohol consumption among pregnant women, etc. Pages 7-8, lines 267-304.

Elaborate more and compare the findings with other Asian countries

Re: Added reference 31, which is the most recently published evidence of global trends in LBWR, including most countries worldwide (also including Asia). Unfortunately, except for the data from reference 31 and Korea and Japan provided in the original article, there is little evidence of recent trends from Asia. Page 7, lines 247-251.

Line 239: “…..LBWR has increased in the last 10 years”. Kindly include the reference.

Re: Added references “[19,22-23,30-31]”. Page 7, line 263.

Don’t just discuss the limitations of the study, also add few points regarding the strength

Re: The strengths of this study were added at the end of the discussion. Pages 10-11, lines 397-410.

Highlight and discuss what the government has done so far regarding the steady rising of LBWR

Re: A related discussion has been added to the penultimate paragraph of the Discussion section. Page 10, lines 374-396.

Finally, add some recommendations to your conclusion

Re: Some suggestions have been added to the conclusion section. Page 11, lines 433-441.

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. Thank you for sharing that the vector maps were derived from publicly available data from the National Catalogue Service of Geographic Information in China (https://www.webmap.cn/main.do?method=index). We request the authors to attribute the source of the basemap in the corresponding figure legend. As with all content, we ask that authors respect map providers’ requirements for attribution.

Re: modified.

The nature, extent and timing of the requests to change the author list call into question whether your manuscript complies with the PLOS Authorship policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship). As such, we are rescinding the Accept decision and rejecting the manuscript.

We may reconsider this submission in the future if a research integrity official at the corresponding author’s institution reviews and provides verification of the article's authors and their contributions. The following documents would need to be provided when resubmitting:

a. Written, signed statements from all contributors, including added/removed authors, confirming that all agree with the article’s author list and contributions

b. Cover letter that describes the contribution of each author and provides a specific reason why each author was added or removed after initial submission

c. Formal letter from a research integrity official or equivalent at the corresponding author’s institution, or the institution where the majority of the research was conducted, confirming the author list and stated contributions.

d. Institutional email address for the official responsible for oversight of research and/or research integrity at the corresponding author’s institution.

Re: We have submitted these documents.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(1).doc
Decision Letter - Jennifer Tucker, Editor

Spatio-temporal distribution and socioeconomic inequality of low birthweight rate in China from 1992 to 2021 and its predictions to 2030

PONE-D-24-28886R2

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Jennifer Tucker, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jennifer Tucker, Editor

PONE-D-24-28886R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 Jennifer Tucker

Staff 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 .