Dear Dr. Hossain,

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.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to thereviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 28 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,

Swaminathan Subramanian, Ph.D.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The researchers examined the spatial and temporal variation in educational development index (EDI) in Bangladesh, aiming to understand the driving factors of EDI. They fitted a Bayesian spatial temporal model to district level literacy rate (I presume it is EDI) assuming literacy rate as Gaussian distributed and adjusting for socio-economic, and demographic characteristics. They identified health index, income index, expected years of schooling, population density, and dependency ratio are important factors of EDI in Bangladesh and concluded that policymakers can use these factors to identify the districts to improve the educational index. The manuscript needs major revision in respects of Introduction. Methods, and presentation of Results. Therefore, in its present form, the ms is not suitable for publication.

Major :

1. The model description is incomplete: The authors state that they have used spatiotemporal models to describe the evolution of EDI over space and time. Whether ANOVA model is same as space-time interaction model as proposed by Knorr and Held (Bayesian modelling of inseparable space-time variation in disease risk. Statistics in medicine. 2000;19(17–18):2555–67. pmid:10960871 2000).  If so whether the authors fitted all the four types of interactions (Type I, II, III, IV). If not, which one of the 4 type of interaction models were fitted to data, giving reason for their choice. What is Autoregressive model? Please make it clear what does the components of the AR model ( and ) describe (spatial or temporal, or space-time interactions). A clear description of the spatial / temporal or spatiotemporal components of each model for ‘’  should be given. E.g. What does the symbols refer to ‘’ in ANOVA, and  and  in the autoregressive models. Alternatively, apart from Linear Model trend, I would suggest the authors to provide a generic equation to describe the response variable as a linear combination of fixed effects (explanatory variables), and random effects (spatial, temporal and space-time interaction). This equation can be used to fit only a fixed effect model, or fixed and random effect models (only spatial or temporal, with or without interaction term). 
2. The methodology and presentation of results lack clarity, needs improvement. The Methods are described in Introduction as well as in the Results Section. As a consequence, lacks continuity while reading the Results Section. 
3. Introduction is too lengthy and is a mixture of Introduction and Methods. The Introduction has lot of scope for shortening. 

Minor

1. Please consider revising the title to reflect the objectives of the ms as given beow:  “Modeling Spatial and Temporal Variability in Educational Development Index of Bangladesh using socio-economic, and demographic data, 2001–2021: A Bayesian Approach”

ABSTRACT

1. The ‘AR1’ model is a ‘temporal model’. Instead, the authors should rewrite the sentence as “Among the several models tested, the temporal model ‘AR1’ model showed better performance compared with others”. 
2. Please consider rewriting the sentence starting from “However, the health index,……” as “Of the factors considered for model fitting, the health index, income index, expected years of schooling, population density, and dependency ratio are found to be important components of educational development in Bangladesh.”

INTRODUCTION

1. Please clarify whether EDI and literacy rate mean the same. If so, use the same terminology throughout the ms.
2. Introduction, para 1: delete the expansion of ‘EDI’ as it is already abbreviated and use EDI in the subsequent occurrences.
3. Move the sentences from INTRIDUCTION describing Methodology to “METHODS’ section. E.g. The sentences beginning with “spatial data mining ……” until the end of the para can be moved to Methods section.
4. Last para: Delete the sentences beginning with “The hierarchical…. … educational development data [14].” 

METHODS

1. Data Source: Abbreviate “Global Data Lab” in the first occurrence as “GDL”. Please list the variables for which the data were extracted from this source or simply say all the covariates data were extracted from this source.
2. The authors can include a table showing the study variables, time period and the source for each. Alternatively, they can link the variables with data source. At present the data source is given separately without a reference to the study variables.
3. The probability mass function: The response variable is a continuous one. Therefore, it should be read as “probability density function”. I presume, the equation is erroneously typed, it should have begun with, for e.g. “f(y, mu, sigma)”. Please check and modify the equation accordingly.
4. Please expand “ANOVA”. 
5. Ethical statement:  The authors have to justify the reasons for “not applicable”.

RESULTS 

1. The Results begins with a description of the ‘EDA’. This should be moved to Methods. 
2. Para 3: “To explore the relationship between literacy rate and the other social index, the authors used a correlation matrix presented in Figure 2” Please read the sentence as “Figure 2 shows correlation matrix describing the relationships between literacy rate and socio-economic variables”. 
3. Move the sentence, “To examine autocorrelation with Global Moran’s, we set the null hypothesis as, = There is no spatial dependence between neighboring districts due to educational development, and alternative hypothesis  = There is spatial dependence between neighboring districts due to educational development” to Methods section under “Assumption checking”
4. The para beginning with “Exploratory spatial data analysis (ESDA) has difficulties in capturing the temporal dynamics of geographical features, even though it can be used to depict and summarize complicated spatial patterns [32]. To capture temporal dynamics along with spatial effect, Bayesian spatio-temporal.” The para describes the methods. Please move these sentences to appropriate place under Methods Section.
5. Table 3: Add a footnote to Table 3 to expand the abbreviated columns labels (DIC, WAIC, .p.d, p.w, LMPL, RMSE, MAE, CRPS, CVG).
6. ‘Figure 7’ should read as ‘Figure 6’

In addition to the above, comments / suggestions are added in the pdf file of the ms as comment tags (Please refer to the attached ms). 

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

This is an interesting paper which contains informative findings and plots.

There is a good balance of exploratory and inferential statistics.

Some areas for improvement are:

1. I would suggest more work on describing the modeling approach and making it "more accesible" to the readership of the journal.

2. Higher resolution of the images would improve the paper.

3. Who is Sahu? This name was used in the text.

4. The section describing the model notation is not accessible to the readership. Would be useful to explain which components of the model account for spatial variation and spatiotemporal ie. improve the signposting for the readership of the journal

5. Before using abbreviations, such as bmstdr it is best to describe what they mean at the first mention.

6. The Discussion should sumarrize what the spatiotemporal effects as well as the spatial and temporal effects. Point estimates and Credible intervals would be useful.

Hope these are useful to you.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, Sultana et al. aim to examine how the educational development index relates to various spatiotemporal variables. This study is based on secondary data on literacy rates from 64 districts of Bangladesh and 6 relevant variables over the period 2001 to 2021. The optimal model for the data was identified from Bayesian spatial-temporal modeling (Linear, ANOVA, AR1, and AR2) and the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method used to generate data about the prior and posterior realizations.

The work is well done. I have some specific questions.

1. Page 5. (_, \mu_, \sigma^_) should be (_ | \mu_, \sigma^_). In this formula, what about \sigma^2_it? Are these fixed?

2. In all the maps, there is a figure legend “0,0.5, 1m”. why include this? What is “m”? suggest removal.

3. Page 6. “Conditional Autoregressive (CAR)” needs a citation.

4. Figure 5. What clustering method is used?

5. Figure 7. It is very difficult to distinguish circles representing “fitted” and triangle representing “observed”.

6. Table 2. Intercept. CI should be kept in one line. Reduce font size.

7. Table 3. Please indicate which model is the best.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-14527_with comments.pdf

Dear Dr. Hossain,

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.

I have made substantial editorial corrections in the attached ms, particularly the model descriptions under Methodology, and a few corrections in the Results, Discussion and Conclusions. I request you go through the editorial corrections in the above-mentioned sections and revise the text, if they are agreeable. Also, you will find a few comments in respect of model description and Results for your consideration while revising the ms.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 19 2025 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.

• 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 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,

Swaminathan Subramanian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

The following are a few comments to be addressed while revising ms:

1) LL 66: Use the PLOS ONE style for citing references.

2) LL 44-49 & 77-78: This is a repeat statement, should be deleted. Please see

3) LL 169, AR model equation: Is it ‘ϕ_it’ or ‘ϕ_i’. Else define ‘ϕ_it’ in the AR model

4) LL 169 & 453-54: ANOVA model: Please describe the parameter (γ_it) in the ANOVA model. What does this parameter represent?

5) LL 580 and Table 2: Is it ν^2 or σ^2. ν^2 is no where described in the model equations. Please check and correct.

6) LL 581-85: The estimated values for these parameters are not matching the data provided in Table 2. Please check and revise the text / Table.

7) Table 2: 'τ^2_int and τ^2_slo': No data given for these parameters. Please check the table and revise it.

8) LL 611-12: You have not considered the joint effect of space and time. Explain, how did you make this inference.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The issues that I raised are adequately addressed. For the more technical queries by other reviewers, I am not sure of whether they have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all my comments.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript _with corrections by Academic Editor.docx

Modeling Spatial and Temporal Variability in Educational Development Index of Bangladesh using socio-economic, and demographic data, 2001–2021: A Bayesian Approach

PONE-D-24-14527R2

Dear Dr. Hossain,

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,

Swaminathan Subramanian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: