PONE-D-23-15427Exploring Determinants of Early Marriage among Women in Bangladesh: A Multilevel AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rashid,

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.

Given the concerns from reviewers and the editor, I recommend that the manuscript undergo major revisions before being reconsidered for publication in this journal. The authors should address the issues related to novelty, methodological innovation, variable selection, and rationale as outlined in this review. Additionally, the manuscript should clearly differentiate the research from existing studies and highlight its unique contributions to the field. Please note that acceptance of the paper is not guaranteed unless these concerns are adequately addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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,

Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]. 

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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:

1. 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].”

2. 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 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript presents an analysis of factors influencing early marriage in Bangladesh. The authors utilize multilevel logistic regression to examine the impact of various socio-demographic factors on the occurrence of early marriage. While the study provides valuable insights into this important social issue, there are several concerns that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication in this journal.

The novelty of the research is questionable as the identified factors such as age, education, place of residence, division, wealth index, and religion have been previously documented in research conducted in Bangladesh. The authors need to demonstrate how their study contributes to the existing literature by introducing methodological or design innovations that differentiate it from previous research. The use of multilevel logistic regression, referred to as multinomial logistic regression in the manuscript, is not adequately justified and does not contribute significantly to the novelty of the study.

The inclusion of independent variables in the analysis is not clearly explained, and there is a risk of important potential variables being omitted. The authors should consider utilizing association rule mining and other variable selection methods to ensure that all relevant variables are included in the model. Additionally, the reference category in Table 2 should be adjusted to improve the interpretability of the results, specially making ages 35-49 as reference category.

The rationale for the research is not convincingly presented, and the findings do not offer substantial insights beyond what is already known from previous studies. The authors should articulate a clearer rationale for their research and highlight any unique contributions or insights that distinguish their study from existing literature. Differentiating the research by examining trends from the early 20th century and identifying changes in factors over recent surveys could enhance the significance of the study.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: No

**********

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: Abstract: Please define the early marriage in the methods section.

Line 11: Since the aim of this study was to identify prevalence and determinants, I would suggest to mention the prevalence of early marriage first then determinants

Line 13: can we say effect in a cross-sectional study? Please use appropriate term

Line 18: high is a vague term. You didn’t mention any percentage. So how the reader will understand high prevalence?

Lines 58-63: The rational of this study need to be strengthened. Is the multilevel modelling only reason for this study? If so then, using multiple logistic regression adjusting the cluster variables such as administrative division, urban and rural and the primary sampling unit will provide almost the similar results. The authors are advised to make strong rational behind this study.

Lines 70-71: Is this correct? Taken representative sample from entire population. Please rewrite.

Line 107: Is it wise to say risk factor for cross-sectional study?

In the statistical analysis section, explain bit more about the multi-level modelling, the number of levels and which level nested with other levels.

Line 139:140: Revise the sentence.

In Figure 1, the values were not clear in the read zones. Please make it clear

Line 148: please rewrite the sentence.

Line 155: What do you mean by extremely young age? Please clarify

Line 156: effect or association?

Lines 156-158: Make consistent in the categories throughout the manuscript. In the method section, the authors mentioned Poorest and Richest but here poor and rich.

Lines 232-233: Conclusion should be based on the main findings.

Reviewer #2: Comments on the paper

General:

Thank you for allowing me to review your manuscript. I admire the effort and dedication evident in conducting this research and compiling the findings. From my point of view, the manuscript needs a revision.

1. The abstract effectively summarizes the study objectives and key findings. However, it could benefit from a clearer statement of the study's significance and implications for addressing the issue of early marriage in Bangladesh.

2. Introduction: The introduction provides a comprehensive background on early marriage but lacks a clear statement of the research gap or objectives. It could be improved by explicitly stating the research objectives to provide readers with a clear understanding of the study's purpose.

3. Methods:

Survey Setting: The description of the survey methodology lacks detail regarding the sampling strategy beyond the two-stage stratified sampling approach. Readers would benefit from more information on how clusters were selected, especially regarding the exclusion of certain regions, which could introduce bias.

Analytical Sample: While the total number of women included in the analysis is provided, there is no discussion of how missing data or non-response were handled, which is crucial for assessing the robustness of the findings and potential biases in the sample.

Outcome Variable: The definition of the outcome variable, "age at first cohabitation," is insufficiently explained. Given the sensitivity of this measure, clarity on how it was defined and operationalized is essential for readers to interpret the results accurately.

Explanatory Variables: The rationale for selecting specific explanatory variables is not explicitly stated. Without justification for including factors such as women's age, education, religion, wealth index, etc., readers may question the relevance and comprehensiveness of the analysis.

There is no discussion on the assumptions underlying multilevel modeling or potential limitations associated with its application in this context. Providing such insights would enhance the methodological rigor and transparency of the study.

4. Results:

While the author's rationale for using multilevel logistic regression is understandable, providing a more comprehensive explanation of how this approach effectively addresses the limitations of previous methods would enhance the robustness of the study. Clarifying the specific advantages of multilevel modeling in capturing regional variation would strengthen the methodological justification and improve reader confidence in the chosen analytical approach.

5. The discussion could be further developed by exploring the underlying mechanisms driving these associations and proposing actionable recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders.

6. While the manuscript acknowledges some limitations of the study, such as recall bias, it does not provide a comprehensive discussion of methodological limitations and their implications for interpreting the results.

7. The conclusion section provides a brief summary of the study findings but lacks specific recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders. Without actionable guidance on how to address the issue of early marriage in Bangladesh based on the research findings, the manuscript falls short of its potential to inform policy and practice effectively.

**********

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: Comments_15427.docx

Exploring Determinants of Early Marriage among Women in Bangladesh: A Multilevel Analysis

PONE-D-23-15427R1

Dear Dr. RAHMAN,

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,

Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the comments properly. One last concern, why the author included 18-49 years age group rather than 15-49 years? Need a clear justification for this because BDHS included the age group of 15-49 years.

Reviewer #2: Minor issues:

• While the authors have improved the significance of their study, I suggest briefly elaborating on how addressing early marriage could lead to broader societal benefits, such as improved health outcomes, economic development, and gender equality. This would further clarify the broader implications of their findings.

• Analytical Sample:

Specify the percentage of missing data for clarity (e.g., "we found a small percentage of missing data...").

• In the introduction, it might be helpful for the authors to briefly explain why a multilevel model is particularly suitable for this study. A sentence or two outlining the advantages of this approach in understanding the complexities of early marriage could enhance clarity.

• Survey Setting: Authors have made an effort to include more details about the methodology. It would be helpful to clarify how clusters were selected and why certain regions were excluded to fully address potential biases.

**********

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: Md. Tariqujjaman

Reviewer #2: No

**********