Ethnicity/caste and child anthropometric outcomes in India using the National Family Heath Survey 2015–16 and 2019–21

Sakshi Pandey; Dil Bahadur Rahut; Tetsuya Araki

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311092

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 22, 2024
3 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Prem Shankar Mishra, Editor PONE-D-24-16005Understanding the impact of Ethnicity/Caste and Child Anthropometric Outcomes in India using the National Family Heath Survey 2015-16 and 2019-21PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pandey, 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 Aug 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, Prem Shankar Mishra 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset 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. 3. 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. 4. 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: No ******** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1- Clear subheadings are needed in the methodology section to differentiate between various components of the methodology. 2- comprehensive review of previous studies is lacking in the manuscript, which would give strength to justify current research. 3- Rationale behind the selection of ESTER and marginal analysis needs to be elaborated. 4- unexpected findings within the result are not deeply discussed (i.e, mother's age group at birth was insignificant for anthropometric outcomes, etc), which could be an opportunity for future research. 5- Number figure for underweight is missing in the introduction. Reviewer #2: My Comments on PONE-D-24-16005 Understanding the impact of Ethnicity/Caste and Child Anthropometric Outcomes in India using the National Family Heath Survey 2015-16 and 2019-21 Since the table numbers do not match with the referred table numbers, I would suggest the authors resubmit the paper. The following points should be taken into account before resubmitting. 1. The description of variables is too big. Instead, it would be nice if the list of variables taken in the analysis is presented in the form of a table with columns as (i) name of the variable, (ii) a brief description of the variable and (iii) the categories if it is a categorical variable. The required explanations may be given as brief as possible. 2. It is wrong to say that the “logistic model fails to account for the interaction between ethnicity and other covariates”. However, the ESTER and Blinder Oaxaca model models are welcome. 3. Table numbers and referred table numbers do not match. In fact, table numbering is not OK. After Table 1 it jumps to Table 11. 4. Table 12 is not necessary. 5. While or before carrying out the logistic regression it is necessary to test for multicollinearity of the explanatory variables. 6. Because the paper is too lengthy, I would suggest removing the figures completely. ****** 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: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: MyComments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311092.r001
Revision 1
14 Aug 2024 Author Response We thank the handling editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments. We agree with most of the comments and have tried our best to address the comments raised by the reviewer. The suggestions and recommendations provided by the reviewer have helped us significantly improve the paper. We have indicated changes or additions to the main text in red in the revised manuscript with track changes. Our point-by-point responses are provided below: Response to Reviewer 1 Comment 1- Clear subheadings are needed in the methodology section to differentiate between various components of the methodology. Response 1: With lots of thanks for this good suggestion, we have included the sub-heading to explain the four different methodologies used in this study. Comment 2- A comprehensive review of previous studies is lacking in the manuscript, which would give strength to justify current research. Response 2: Thank you very much. In the current paper, we have made a significant revision in the introduction section as well as in the results and discussion. Due to the limited availability of space, we could not create a new section devoted to the literature review; instead, we built the review in the introduction [Page 4, Line 45 to Page 6, Line 116] and throughout the manuscript. In total, we have used 71 references in this paper. Comment 3- Rationale behind the selection of ESTER and marginal analysis needs to be elaborated. Response 3: Thank you very much; we included the rationale for the selection of ESTER [Page 9, Line 171-180] and marginal analysis [Page 8, Line 158 to Page 9, Line 169]. Comment 4- Unexpected findings within the result are not deeply discussed (i.e, mother’s age group at birth was insignificant for anthropometric outcomes, etc), which could be an opportunity for future research. Response 4: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We welcome the suggestion, have revised the discussion section, and included a discussion on unexpected findings, such as the mother’s age group. [Page 17, Line 358 - 364] Comment 5- Number figure for underweight is missing in the introduction. Response 5: Thank you very much for pointing out the error. We have added the number figure for underweight in the introduction section [Page 4, line 53]. Response to Reviewer 2 Comment 1: Since the table numbers do not match with the referred table numbers, I would suggest the authors resubmit the paper. Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the error in table numbering. We have revised the table numbers throughout the manuscript. Comment 2: The description of variables is too big. Instead, it would be nice if the list of variables taken in the analysis is presented in the form of a table with columns as (i) name of the variable, (ii) a brief description of the variable and (iii) the categories if it is a categorical variable. The required explanations may be given as brief as possible. Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with your comment and have revised the variable description section by removing the descriptions entirely and replaced with a detailed table including information on the description of variables and citing relevant literature for the rationale to use those explanatory variables [Page 8, line 139-147]. Comment 3: It is wrong to say that the “logistic model fails to account for the interaction between ethnicity and other covariates”. However, the ESTER and Blinder Oaxaca model models are welcome. Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected the above statement [Page 9, line 171-174] and have added additional information on the rationale behind using ESTER [Page 9, Line 174-180]. Comment 4: Table numbers and referred table numbers do not match. In fact, table numbering is not OK. After Table 1 it jumps to Table 11. Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the numbering throughout the revised version of the manuscript. Comment 5: Table 12 is not necessary. Response 5: We thank the reviewer. The submitted manuscript did not have Table 12, but we reckon that the reviewer might be referring to Table 2. We welcome the suggestion, given the space constraint of the journal. We have removed Table 2 in the revised manuscript and added information in the descriptive results section [Page 12, Line 240 - 248]. Comment 6: While or before carrying out the logistic regression it is necessary to test for multicollinearity of the explanatory variables. Response 6: Thank you for the critical suggestion. We analyzed the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for all the predictor variables before finalizing the results [Page 8, Line 144-145]. The VIF Value was equal to or less than 5 for every category of predictor variables. We have added the table indicating VIF Values and Tolerance level for each predictor variable as a supporting document at the end of the manuscript [Page 50-51, line 915]. Comment 7: Because the paper is too lengthy, I would suggest removing the figures completely. Response 7: We thank the reviewer for their comment. We completely understand that the paper is lengthy and have revised and modified it considerably, such as reducing the Introduction and Variable Description sections to shorten the paper. However, we believe that figures are very crucial to our analysis (particularly the marginal effect analysis with interaction effect), as they allow us to examine whether the effect of social groups on anthropometric outcome changes with the change in other SES indicators such as wealth index, maternal education level, and geographical location (urban vs. rural). Notably, the figures make it easy to interpret the magnitude of the effect of the caste on the anthropometric failures rather than the direction of changes. Therefore, we have decided to keep the figures in the revised manuscript. With sincere thanks to Editor and Reviewers, we would also like to mention that we shortened the title of our manuscript from ‘Understanding the impact of Ethnicity/Caste and Child Anthropometric Outcomes in India using the National Family Heath Survey 2015-16 and 2019-21’ to ‘Ethnicity/Caste and Child Anthropometric Outcomes in India using the National Family Heath Survey 2015-16 and 2019-21.’ Again, we thank the Editor and Reviewers for their kind consideration of our manuscript and for giving us the opportunity to submit the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer_PLOS One.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311092.r002
13 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Prem Shankar Mishra, Editor Ethnicity/Caste and Child Anthropometric Outcomes in India using the National Family Heath Survey 2015-16 and 2019-21 PONE-D-24-16005R1 Dear Dr. Sakshi Pandey, 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, Prem Shankar Mishra Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have incorporated the comments and rationally responded to reveiwers comments. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I have reviewed your manuscript and satisfied with corrections that have been made. I recommend a thorough proofreading before final submission. Reviewer #2: The Variance Inflation Factors seem to be too low. The authors are asked to check it again. I still maintain that the figures are not very much necessary. However, I don’t insist that the figures should be deleted. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311092.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Prem Shankar Mishra, Editor PONE-D-24-16005R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pandey, 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. Prem Shankar Mishra Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311092.r004

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 .