Exploring stigma experiences of scattered-site public housing residents and its characteristics based on social contact theory

Sungik Kang; Ja-Hoon Koo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313005

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 24, 2024
1 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Kasi Eswarappa, Editor PONE-D-24-20986Exploring stigma experiences of scattered-site public housing residents and its characteristics based on social contact theoryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koo, 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 15 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, Kasi Eswarappa 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This work was supported by the Korea National Research Foundation under Grant [RS-2023-00239319].]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards. At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 5. 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: We advise the author(s) to carry out the minor revisions of the manuscript. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: should be written again in academic forms. Main aim, where study conducted, model used, period, and main findings. Introduction: The author (s) should highlight the contribution of this work to the existing literature review in the last part of the introduction. The written contribution is not clear and the statements are too long. I propose in the introduction should specify the methodology of research and research hypotheses. The diagnosis itself should indicate the novelty of the results and to publish the considerations in scientific journals. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. I suggest that you refrain from describing in the introduction what the author has included in the various parts of the article Literature review: This research gap must be created by a systematic literature review that provides 'holes' in the state of knowledge on the topic. At the end of your justification you should write something like: According to what we have been able to find, there are no studies referring to and reporting on .... By doing so, you have demonstrated the relevance of the issue and also proved that your study does indeed fill a research gap. ****** 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 ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313005.r001
Revision 1
13 Oct 2024 Author Response 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 1. Response - We have reviewed the Title Page and ensured it follows the journal's guidelines. - The main text has also been revised according to the guidelines for titles, figures, tables, and references. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This work was supported by the Korea National Research Foundation under Grant [RS-2023-00239319].]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 2. Response - We have prepared the Role of Funder statement as follows and included it in the cover letter. - The funder had a role in study design, data collection, empirical analysis, and drafting the manuscript. 3. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards. At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition. 3. Response - We have uploaded the mentioned data set to Figshare. The link is as follows: https://figshare.com/account/articles/26962807 - Additionally, we have included the following statement in the manuscript. - The data and Stata code used for these analyses can be accessed via the following link: https://figshare.com/account/articles/26962807. 4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 4. Response - As you suggested, we have removed the figures from the manuscript file and will upload the image files separately. 5. 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. 5. Response - As you pointed out, there were three issues related to reference citations, which we have corrected as follows: - In the sentence "which is one of the biggest obstacles in operating public rental housing [2-4]," we changed the citation from [3-4] to [2-4]. - We swapped the order of references 58 and 59 in both the main text and the reference list. - We removed reference 60 since it was not cited in the text, and adjusted the numbering: 61 was changed to 60, 62 to 61, and 63 to 62. 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) 1. Comment Reviewer #1: Abstract: should be written again in academic forms. Main aim, where study conducted, model used, period, and main findings. 1. Response: The reviewer suggested that the abstract include the research objective, study area, analytical model, key findings, and the year of the study data. While the study area, analytical model, and key findings were already well organized, the research objective was unclear, and the year of the study data was not specified. Therefore, we have clarified the research objective and added the year of the data used. 2. Comment Introduction: The author (s) should highlight the contribution of this work to the existing literature review in the last part of the introduction. The written contribution is not clear and the statements are too long. I propose in the introduction should specify the methodology of research and research hypotheses. The diagnosis itself should indicate the novelty of the results and to publish the considerations in scientific journals. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. I suggest that you refrain from describing in the introduction what the author has included in the various parts of the article 1) Comment: The contribution of this study to the existing literature should be emphasized. 1) Response: - The contribution of this study is described at the end of Chapter 2. We have revised the sentence to make it more emphasized and clearer. Additionally, the contribution of this study is already demonstrated as addressing areas not covered by previous research, including studies 16, 17, and 30, which are particularly similar to this study. Below is the final revised content related to this matter. - Although various studies have examined the effects of SSPH on resident satisfaction [16], social interaction, and socio-economic status [30], as well as changes in home prices [17], there remains a significant gap in the literature concerning SSPH's role in reducing stigmatization. … …. Thus, this study contributes to the existing body of literature by providing a quantitative analysis of whether SSPH offers advantages in reducing stigmatization compared to other types of public housing such as IPH and SMPH. Additionally, this research sheds light on the influence of neighborhood relationships among SSPH residents on stigmatization, an area that has not been extensively explored in previous studies. 2) Comment: The research hypotheses should be specified. 2) Response: - It appears that the reviewer believes it is more appropriate to state research hypotheses rather than research questions in this study. - Originally, there were research questions, but since research questions and hypotheses of a similar nature do not need to be presented together, we have transformed the original research questions into hypotheses as follows. - The hypotheses of this study are as follows. The first hypothesis is that SSPH actually shows advantages in reducing stigmatization. This analysis distinguishes between IPH and SMPH within public rental housing, as SMPH was introduced as a policy to mitigate stigmatization by mixing higher-income and public rental households within one residential community. However, despite reducing external stigmatization outside the residential district, SMPH also experiences internal stigmatization among residents [1]. Therefore, the second hypothesis is that SSPH shows advantages in reducing stigmatization not only in IPH but also in SMPH. The third hypothesis is that social contact conditions help SSPH residents reduce their experience of stigmatization. According to social contact theory and empirical research, social contact can have positive effects, but excessive contact may also have negative impacts. Hence, the third hypothesis examines the characteristics of stigmatization among SMPH residents based on social contact. 3) Comment: It was suggested to describe the novelty of the diagnosis. 3) Response: - We have highlighted the novelty of the diagnosis by adding the following statement to the manuscript: "The diagnosis of these hypotheses is expected to reveal findings that were not empirically demonstrated in previous studies and may lead to unexpected conclusions." 4) Comment: It was suggested to specify the methodology of the study and to reduce the length of the paragraphs by removing the descriptions of the content included in each section of the paper. 4) Response: - We have specified the study's methodology in the introduction as follows. Additionally, we have shortened the length of the paragraphs by removing unnecessary descriptions of each section's content. - To conduct this empirical analysis, the methodology involves first addressing data imbalance and then using binary logistic regression to analyze and compare the levels of stigmatization in SSPH with those in IPH and SMPH. 5) Comment: The research objective and its significance should be clearly defined. 5) Response: - We have revised the relevant section to clearly reflect the research objective, as shown below. - Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore whether residents of scattered-site public housing experience less stigmatization compared to residents of other public housing types. - Specifically, it is significant to analyze the characteristics of stigmatization by comparing the levels experienced by SSPH residents with those experienced by residents in independent public housing (IPH), where only public housing residents live, and socially mixed public housing (SMPH). 6) Comment: Review and cite the current state of research in the field. 6) Response: - In Chapter 2, we have reviewed all the significant studies related to this topic and logically presented the necessary content. - Therefore, no additional actions were taken regarding this point. 3. Comment Literature review: This research gap must be created by a systematic literature review that provides 'holes' in the state of knowledge on the topic. At the end of your justification you should write something like: According to what we have been able to find, there are no studies referring to and reporting on .... By doing so, you have demonstrated the relevance of the issue and also proved that your study does indeed fill a research gap. 3. Response: We have made the following revisions according to the reviewer's comments. To our knowledge, no existing studies have statistically compared SSPH with other types of public housing, such as IPH and SMPH, to verify its effectiveness in this regard. By doing so, this study aims to fill this gap by analyzing the characteristics of SSPH related to stigmatization and demonstrating its potential advantages over other housing types. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313005.r002
17 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Kasi Eswarappa, Editor Exploring stigma experiences of scattered-site public housing residents and its characteristics based on social contact theory PONE-D-24-20986R1 Dear Dr. Koo, 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, Kasi Eswarappa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I appreciate your effort in revising the paper. Hence, I am accepting it for publication in our respected journal. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313005.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Kasi Eswarappa, Editor PONE-D-24-20986R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koo, 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. Kasi Eswarappa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313005.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 .