Characteristics and risk factors for sibling incest

Kelly M. Babchishin; Emma J. Holmes; Rainer Banse; Lisa Huppertz; Michael C. Seto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314550

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 7, 2024
13 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Tijani Idris Ahmad Oseni, Editor PONE-D-24-20078Characteristics and Risk Factors for Sibling IncestPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Banse, 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 27 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, Tijani Idris Ahmad Oseni, FMCFM 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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Lisa Huppertz. Additional Editor Comments: The subject matter is of relevance and the background was well written. however, the aim of the study was not well spelt out in the manuscript. Also, the methods section is greatly flawed and need revision. for instance, how was the sample size determined? How were participants recruited? What determined eligibility to receive the online survey? What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? How was the study instrument developed and validated? How reliable is the instrument for data collection? The Table one in the study design should actually be in the results section. [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: 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: 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: It is an interesting research. It brought a lot of factors to bear under the correlates. The result answered the highlighted researvh questions. I understand that there a dearth of research in this field however I feel like under the discussion, findings from similar research should be compared with the findings from this study. Possible reasons for the observed difference(s) can then be brought out e.g methodological differences, sociocultural reasons etc.These reasons can spur future research in this field. Some part of the discussion tried to follow this pattern however most part did not. Reviewer #2: Passionate kissing among sibling may not be regarded as sexual relations. you need to define it more and give backing Reference number 6. no date when internet was accessed. Reference 19, please include when the internet was accessed Reference number 20. include the month as you did with others references. In second survey, incentive of gift may create bias in the person taking the survey. ****** 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: Yes: Dr Kumbet John Sonny ******** [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.0314550.r001
Revision 1
10 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Oseni, We are pleased to receive the chance to revise and resubmit our manuscript "Characteristics and risk factors for sibling incest" (Manuscript No. PONE-D-24-20078) to PLOS ONE. We have addressed all comments received in the uploaded revised version of the manuscript and summarized changes that pertain to each in the list below (original comments in bold). Thank you again for the helpful comments. We feel that the revised manuscript is much stronger because of these comments. The authors. 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 We have updated the manuscript to meet the style requirements. 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting . Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. We have added the questionnaire on inclusivity in global research to the supporting materials. 3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Lisa Huppertz. Lisa Huppertz was added to the authorship list. Additional Editor Comments: The subject matter is of relevance and the background was well written. however, the aim of the study was not well spelt out in the manuscript. Thank you. We have outlined our study aims in lines 89-93. Also, the methods section is greatly flawed and need revision. for instance, how was the sample size determined? We have revised the manuscript so that lines 108-110 highlight how sample size was determined. How were participants recruited? What determined eligibility to receive the online survey? What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? Lines 111-116 now outline how recruitment took place, how participants could enrol in the study, as well as our inclusion criteria. How was the study instrument developed and validated? How reliable is the instrument for data collection? S1 File includes information about study measures and cites any scales that were included. S1 File also includes a measure of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for any scales that were presented to participants. The Table one in the study design should actually be in the results section. Table 1 has been moved to the Results section. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: It is an interesting research. It brought a lot of factors to bear under the correlates. The result answered the highlighted researvh questions. I understand that there a dearth of research in this field however I feel like under the discussion, findings from similar research should be compared with the findings from this study. Possible reasons for the observed difference(s) can then be brought out e.g methodological differences, sociocultural reasons etc.These reasons can spur future research in this field. Some part of the discussion tried to follow this pattern however most part did not. Thank you. We have revised such that all sections of the discussion indicate whether our results are in line with past research or not. Lines 273-287 outline the major findings from our research which did not overlap with past research and we have provided potential reasons for this (e.g., that instead of being directly related to incest avoidance, proximal factors mediate the relationship between cues of relatedness and sibling incest). Reviewer #2: Passionate kissing among sibling may not be regarded as sexual relations. you need to define it more and give backing Passionate kissing (e.g., open-mouthed kissing involving tongue contact) is a non-normative childhood sexual behaviour that is included in Friedrich et al’s Child Sexual Behavior Inventory. We have included this information in lines 72-75 of the manuscript. Reference number 6. no date when internet was accessed. Reference 19, please include when the internet was accessed The date these resources were accessed was added. Reference number 20. include the month as you did with others references. The month was included in this reference. In second survey, incentive of gift may create bias in the person taking the survey. While incentives could bias who chose to enrol in the study, we mitigated this by offering a relatively low incentive. Further, incentivising survey participants through small gifts (i.e., gift cards) is a common technique used to recruit sample sizes that are sufficiently large to conduct multivariate regression. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314550.r002
14 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Tijani Idris Ahmad Oseni, Editor Characteristics and risk factors for sibling incest PONE-D-24-20078R1 Dear Dr. Rainer Banse, 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, Tijani Idris Ahmad Oseni, FMCFM 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 concerns have been addressed and the ethical approval has been stated. The identities of the respondents cannot be traced which is a major ethical consideration in this article. The article can be published ****** 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: Odunaye-Badmus Sekinat Oloruntosin ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314550.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Tijani Idris Ahmad Oseni, Editor PONE-D-24-20078R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Banse, 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. Tijani Idris Ahmad Oseni Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314550.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 .