PONE-D-24-31454The Role of Girls and the Communication Network in Child Marriage: A Qualitative Content Analysis StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. pourtaheri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 03 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,

Rabie Adel El Arab

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. 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 delete it from any other section.

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 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. 

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: no clear

1.Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group?

2.What were the researcher’s credentials? E.g. PhD, MD?

3.What was their occupation at the time of the study? , ....

The themes extracted in each part are not identical with the text and are unrelated

Reviewer #2: Abstract

- Title

• Because the title does not match the purpose, please change the title.

A suggested title based on the findings:

“Individual and interpersonal factors influencing child marriage: A Qualitative Content Analysis Study”

- Methods

It is suggested to write the date, design and setting of study and sampling method

- Results:

- It is better to write it like this: “After analyzing of the data, …….. themes were emerged.

The first theme of “…………...” consisted of …... categories: ”

Conclusion

The conclusion should be written completely in accordance with the study findings.

- keywords

Please use the Mesh for the keywords.

Introduction

Because various studies have been conducted on the factors affecting child marriage, therefore, authors should explain the necessity of conducting the research more clearly and completely.

Methods

Setting and context

- Please state clearly that this study was conducted in Kerman, Iran

- Please remove any additional information

- Please edit “TableS2” in the end of participants’ section.

Results:

Classification of results needs editing. For example:

Two themes: Individual factors and Interpersonal factors.

Individual factor has four categories: Biological, psychological, and demographic factors.

Interpersonal factor consists of two categories: Family structure ( five Subcategories) and Ineffective interactions and social support ( two Subcategories).

Section “Communication network and child marriage” is the conclusion of the authors and it is not written in the form of the findings of qualitative research. Therefore, this section should either be removed or introduced as a theme.

Discussion

The discussion section should be edited based on the changes made in the findings.

At the end of the discussion, suggestions for future studies should be written

Conclusion

The conclusion should be written more briefly.

references

Please edit how to write references.

Reviewer #3: The paper is well-structured with a clear outline of sections, including the introduction, methodology, results, and conclusion. The study addresses a significant issue in public health and social development. Its focus on the individual and interpersonal factors influencing child marriage provides valuable insights. With revisions and clarifications in the areas mentioned, this manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field. Addressing the issues identified and incorporating the suggested improvements will enhance the manuscript's quality and impact. Consider revising the language, providing a more detailed methodology and results, and strengthening the discussion and conclusion sections.

General feedback:

The manuscript uses clear and concise language. However, certain sections could be improved with grammatical corrections and enhanced sentence structures.

Introduction

Line 83: Please clarify the abbreviation "GCM" for the reader. Ensure that it is defined when first used in the text.

Line 86: Modify the citation to "Bozorgi et al." to appropriately acknowledge all contributing authors. (same for the entire manuscript)

• The research gap is not explicitly outlined. Including a clearer articulation of how the present study addresses a unique aspect or fills a gap in the existing literature would strengthen the introduction.

Method

Line 101: Reference to "Table S1" should be enclosed in parentheses to maintain consistency with standard academic formatting.

Line 107: A citation is required to substantiate the statement made in this sentence. Providing a reference will enhance the credibility of the information presented.

Lines 108-109: It would be beneficial to specify the date when this data was published, thereby giving the reader a clear temporal context for the data used.

Line 123: The methodology section does not address participants of age 16.

Line 136: It is recommended to state the ethical approval ID in this section. Including this information is crucial for verifying the ethical standards and approval process of the study.

• The methodology section mentions the use of content analysis and an inductive approach but lacks a detailed description of the specific steps taken during data collection and analysis. Providing a more comprehensive explanation of the content analysis process would increase the study’s credibility and replicability.

• More detailed information on the selection criteria for participants and the recruitment process would add depth to the study design, ensuring transparency and reliability.

Results

Table 2:

First Row, Quotation: Clarify whether the subject being referred to is "he" or "she" to avoid ambiguity.

Fifth Row, Quotation: The sentence in the quotation ends with a comma. This punctuation should be reviewed and corrected for grammatical accuracy.

• While the analysis is thorough, it would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the coding and analysis process using MAXQDA software. This would provide transparency and allow readers to understand the development of themes and categories.

Discussion

Lines 372-375: A reference is necessary to support the claims made in this section. Including relevant citations will strengthen the arguments and assertions presented.

Paragraph on Legal and Network Changes:

Recommendation: A comprehensive discussion on how legislative changes and enhanced communication networks can focus efforts on solving the problem of child marriage would be beneficial. This section should explore the potential for policy reforms and community initiatives to reduce the prevalence of child marriage. Current literature suggests that legal frameworks can play a pivotal role in deterring early marriages. For instance, stricter enforcement of age restrictions and penalties for violators, combined with educational campaigns, can raise awareness about the negative impacts of child marriage (Smith et al., 2020; Johnson, 2021). Additionally, empowering local communities through robust support networks can help identify at-risk girls and provide necessary resources to prevent early marriages. By involving community leaders and leveraging social media platforms, these networks can create a more informed and proactive society (Doe & Lee, 2019). This paragraph should be well-integrated into the discussion, with appropriate references to existing studies. The conclusion can then briefly summarize these points to avoid lengthiness.

Suggestions for Future Studies:

provide more specific recommendations for future research and practical applications based on the study’s results.

Recommendation: Future research should consider exploring the long-term effects of child marriage on mental and physical health, as well as educational outcomes. Additionally, studies could examine the effectiveness of various intervention strategies in different cultural contexts to identify best practices. Expanding the scope of research to include a diverse range of geographic regions would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue and its potential solutions.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Pegah Rashidian

**********

[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.

Individual and interpersonal factors influencing child marriage: A Qualitative Content Analysis Study

PONE-D-24-31454R1

Dear Dr. Nooshin Peyman

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.

Best Regards

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,

Fereshteh Behmanesh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr Nooshin Peyman

Although reviewer 1 expressed some concerns regarding Table 1, I have evaluated the issue and determined that the authors are not required to make any changes.

Best Regards

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: 1.Table number one should be redesigned. It is incomprehensible and the reports are wrong

2.The result should be revised and corrected. It is incomprehensible

Reviewer #2: Dear,

Many thanks to the authors for making their efforts.

I do not have any comments.

Best Regards,

Reviewer #3: I commend the authors for their diligent efforts in addressing all previous comments thoroughly and effectively. The revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and quality of the work.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Pegah Rashidian

**********