PONE-D-24-13684Assessing the influence of the modifiable areal unit problem on Bayesian disease mapping in Queensland, AustraliaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jahan,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Kindly revise the research paper as per the reviewer comments and resubmit it soon.  

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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,

T. Ganesh Kumar, PhD

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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“QUT Centre for Data Science.”

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“Ethical Approval

Only simulated data were used in this manuscript, data was simulated by Cancer

Council Queensland following the appropriate ethical consideration. This was

approved by the Data Custodians of the original data.

Funding

This research was funded by QUT Centre for Data Science.

Data availability

Datasets used in the research are not publicly available. However, the data can be

made available on request to the authors.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“QUT Centre for Data Science.”

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

5. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

7. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 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 Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 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/

8. 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:

Dear Authors,

Your paper is quality for publication. We have received the comments from the reviewers. Both reviewers are accepted the research paper with few comments.

The authors needs to revise the manuscript as per the reviewer comments. Kindly revise your paper as per the comments and resubmit it soon.

[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: No

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: The manuscript provides a comprehensive introduction to the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) and its significance in spatial epidemiology, particularly in Bayesian disease mapping. The literature review is thorough, referencing key studies that highlight the challenges and previous approaches to addressing MAUP. The methodology section is well-detailed, describing the Bayesian disease mapping techniques used, including the choice of spatial units and statistical models. The manuscript justifies the selection of spatial units, explaining how different aggregations might influence the results. Advanced statistical methods are employed to account for spatial autocorrelation and to model disease risk, demonstrating a rigorous approach. Results are presented clearly, with appropriate use of tables and maps summaries to illustrate the impact of MAUP on disease mapping. Statistical analyses are robust, showing how different spatial aggregations affect the estimates of disease risk. The results are consistent with the hypotheses, demonstrating the influence of MAUP on the findings. The discussion effectively links the results back to the research questions and the broader literature on MAUP and disease mapping. Conclusions are logically derived from the results, emphasizing the importance of considering MAUP in spatial epidemiology. Recommendations for future research and policy implications are clearly stated, highlighting the practical significance of the findings. The manuscript critically assesses the impact of MAUP, discussing potential solutions and areas for further investigation. The data used are directly relevant to the study's objectives, focusing on disease incidence in Queensland, Australia. The spatial and temporal resolution of the data is appropriate for examining the effects of MAUP on Bayesian disease mapping. The analyses are thorough, using multiple spatial aggregations to demonstrate how MAUP affects disease risk estimates. Statistical techniques are appropriately applied, ensuring that the findings are robust and reliable. The interpretation of the results is sound, clearly showing how different spatial units lead to variations in disease risk estimates. The manuscript discusses the implications of these variations, supporting the need for careful consideration of MAUP in spatial epidemiological studies. The data support the conclusions drawn, with clear evidence that MAUP significantly influences Bayesian disease mapping outcomes. The manuscript provides a strong case for the importance of addressing MAUP, backed by rigorous statistical analysis and comprehensive data interpretation. Overall, the manuscript "Assessing the influence of the modifiable areal unit problem on Bayesian disease mapping in Queensland, Australia" is technically sound. The data are credible and relevant, and the analyses are thorough and appropriately applied. The conclusions are well-supported by the data, providing valuable insights into the impact of MAUP on disease mapping and highlighting the need for careful spatial analysis in epidemiological studies.

Reviewer #2: 1. Why is it significant to investigate the impact of the MAUP in regions with sparse data, particularly in countries like Australia with less populated areas?

2. How MAUP affects the analysis of spatially aggregated data? Why it is a concern in spatial analysis?

3. What advantages do area structures with moderate resolution offer in terms of dealing with the MAUP?

4. What types of Bayesian spatial models were employed in the study, and how do they account for spatial correlation and variability?

5. What are the potential benefits of using SA1 or SA2 levels for spatial modelling according to the authors?

**********

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: Dr.M.Subbulakshmi

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: PONE-D-24-13684_Review Comments.docx

Assessing the influence of the modifiable areal unit problem on Bayesian disease mapping in Queensland, Australia

PONE-D-24-13684R1

Dear Dr. Jahan,

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,

T. Ganesh Kumar, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have answered the reviewer's comments and updated the contents in the revised versions.

I accept the paper for the further process.

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: The manuscript "Assessing the influence of the modifiable areal unit problem on Bayesian disease mapping in Queensland, Australia" presents to assess different geographical regions' vulnerability to the MAUP when data are relatively sparse to inform researchers' choice of aggregation level for fitting spatial models. The authors have demonstrated a commendable effort in developing a system for this purpose. Providing clear headings, subheadings, and transitions between sections would improve the flow of information and aid in understanding the research methodology and findings. Providing a comprehensive overview of the algorithms, parameters, and preprocessing techniques used would enhance the reproducibility and understanding of the study. The manuscript should adhere to Standard English conventions to ensure clarity and coherence. This includes using appropriate grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure throughout the text. Ensure consistency in terminology and terminology usage throughout the manuscript. Additionally, maintaining cohesion between sections and paragraphs by clearly establishing logical connections between ideas would enhance readability and comprehension. Additionally, complex technical terms and concepts should be explained clearly to accommodate readers with varying levels of expertise in the subject matter. The introduction provides a comprehensive background on the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) and its significance in Bayesian disease mapping. However, the review of literature could be expanded to include more recent studies or alternative methodologies that address MAUP. The specific relevance of Queensland, Australia, to the study is well articulated. It would be helpful to provide more context on why Queensland was chosen and how its geographic and demographic characteristics might influence the findings. The methodology section is robust, but it would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the Bayesian models used and how they were adjusted to account for MAUP. The sources of data and their quality are crucial for the validity of the results. More information on the data collection process and any limitations of the datasets used would strengthen this section. The statistical techniques employed for assessing the impact of MAUP on disease mapping are sound, but additional details on the assumptions made and how they were validated would be useful. The results are presented clearly, but the discussion could be enhanced by providing more insight into how the findings compare with previous studies on MAUP and Bayesian disease mapping. The discussion section does a good job of outlining the implications of the findings for Bayesian disease mapping. However, it could benefit from a deeper exploration of how the identified issues with MAUP could influence public health decision-making and policy in Queensland. Ensure that all references are up-to-date and relevant. Adding recent publications or key studies related to MAUP and Bayesian disease mapping could enhance the credibility and depth of the literature review. Addressing these considerations will enhance the intelligibility and readability of the manuscript, thereby improving its overall impact and effectiveness in communicating the research findings to the scientific community. Overall, while the manuscript presents a promising approach to Assessing the influence of the modifiable areal unit problem on Bayesian disease mapping in Queensland, Australia strengthen the technical soundness of the study and the support for its conclusions.

Reviewer #2: The raised queries are answered and modified in the revised manuscript in few areas. It can be accepted.

**********

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

**********