PONE-D-24-30068Spearfishing and public health promotion: A cross-sectional analysis of the Hawaiʻi Behavioral Risk Surveillance System SurveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pirkle,

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. The specific comments can be found at the bottom of this email.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 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.

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,

Christopher A. Lepczyk

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

Funding: This work was supported by the Hawaiʻi Department of Health, Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion Division, through a contract with the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. CMP and TLS were the recipients of the award. No commercial companies were involved in funding the work; no individual received funding from commercial companies for the purpose of this project. 

Funder role: The Hawaiʻi Department of Health is responsible for the Hawai'i Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. CMP and TLS successfully negotiated with the Hawaiʻi Department of Health to include a question on spearfishing engagement during the 2019 and 2020 waves. Per national standards for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, data collected from this system are available to the public following proper data request protocols. This includes the question on spearfishing engagement. The views expressed in the paper are the sole content of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Hawaiʻi Department of Health or the University of Hawai‘i. 

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

We would like to thank David Sakoda at the Hawaiʻi Department of Aquatic Resources for his review of this paper and comments and feedback about the appropriateness of the conclusions as a spearfisherman himself and fisheries manager. We would also like to thank Lance Ching at the Hawaiʻi Department of Health for his full support of this project, given that spearfishing had never been examined as a health topic in the state before. 

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: 

Funding: This work was supported by the Hawaiʻi Department of Health, Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion Division, through a contract with the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. CMP and TLS were the recipients of the award. No commercial companies were involved in funding the work; no individual received funding from commercial companies for the purpose of this project. 

Funder role: The Hawaiʻi Department of Health is responsible for the Hawai'i Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. CMP and TLS successfully negotiated with the Hawaiʻi Department of Health to include a question on spearfishing engagement during the 2019 and 2020 waves. Per national standards for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, data collected from this system are available to the public following proper data request protocols. This includes the question on spearfishing engagement. The views expressed in the paper are the sole content of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Hawaiʻi Department of Health or the University of Hawai‘i. 

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

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. 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. 

6. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file "Table S1". Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

7. 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. 

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:

Associate Editor:

Note: please include line numbers as it was very difficult to denote where to engage in edits without them (or page numbers).

Specific comments.

1. Where you use citation 13, I would note that to suggest any culture engaged in management that was resilient to fish and wildlife populations is unlikely. Since humans arrive in Hawaii there have been many species lost on land and it is likely that there was impacts in the ocean as well. I would suggest toning statements down a bit where we lack strong data to demonstrate best management practices. Fishing is and was culturally important and I think that is the main item to focus on.

2. For the hypotheses, I would suggest using active voice and stating ‘We hypothesized…” Also, to strengthen your hypothesis I would suggest providing literature citations or deductive reasoning. In the case of hypothesis 1, this felt a bit like a strawman I and think it needs more work. Also, both hypotheses would be stronger if you had a priori predictions that follow them.

3. Correlates. Are the variables you included modified in any way or are these how they are collated when you get them? For instance, is age binned or did you bin it? If you did modify any of the variables, please note it and why you did it (this situation also might determine if any different analyses are needed).

4. Missing a comma in ‘and greater) island of’ which should be ‘and greater), island of.’

5. Statistical Analysis. Please unify paragraphs into fewer as a paragraph should have a minimum of three sentences.

6. When the word ‘this’ is used to begin a sentence it needs an object following it that connects back to previous sentence. Please correct throughout the ms.

7. Statistical models. I did not understand why just three different models were used. What was the a priori reason for doing these and not other ones or not looking at a best model or model set? In addition, what are you using to define statistical significance in your analysis? Finally, I would suggest noting what a prevalence ratio is and how to interpret it as many readers are not going to understand what is presented in the tables.

8. Results. I would suggest avoiding starting out a sentence like ‘Table 1…’ Rather, please write out the main results and put the table or figure that describes them in more detail in parentheses. You want to state the items here that the reader should learn and not send them right to the tables.

9. Discussion. I would suggest beginning your Discussion by indicating whether or not you found support for your hypotheses.

[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: 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 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:  A well summarized paper with appropriate references. The goal of increasing the recognition of spearfishing in light of overfishing is concerning but thoughtfully addressed in the paper. There was just a slight interesting twist in the logic however knowing that this paper is trying to bring attention to the sport of spearfishing to address public health yet most of the respondents that actively spearfish are currently overweight. If I misunderstood that, perhaps dissecting that a bit further would be helpful.

Reviewer #2:  Review

PLOS

Spearfishing

Spearfishing is a culturally important activity, and could proffer health benefits. In Hawaiʻi, there is no data on the prevalence of this fishing activity in state datasets. This study analyzes two years of data acquired through a question related to spear fishing activity added to the Hawaii Behavioral Risk surveillance System Survey. The study finds interesting details related to fishing behavior. The results are relevant to health promotion activities (and, I imagine, aquatic conservation). The study is well motivated, and the paper is clearly written. The methods are explained in sufficient detail. The results are presented in tables that are easy to interpret. The discussion, study limitations, and conclusion follow from the analysis.

I recommend publishing.

I do have some minor comments for the authors to consider:

“It is believed that during the peak of the Hawaiian Kingdom, nearly every Hawaiian resident participated in some form of fishing.” The way this is phrased begs for a citation.

Not sure about only putting the citation in the 2nd sentence: “One study on the island

of Hawaiʻi documented that 92% of fish caught remained within a 75-km radius of where they

were caught, with half being kept and another third being given away. Additionally, a full fifth of

all fish caught was used for cultural events such as birthdays, weddings, and funerals (16).”

You group your population two ways (ʻsometimes,’ ‘often’ or ‘very often’ during their lifetimes with those who reported participating ‘never’ or ‘almost never’ and ‘often’ or ‘very often’). Of course, it is completely subjective what these terms mean, but do you think that someone who answers “sometimes” is really getting the health benefits? Can you justify why you chose the broader grouping, i.e., including sometimes (other than then you have a larger number)?

For those you are not statisticians, you might explain a tiny bit more what the statistics mean (for instance, “the PR indicates the change in prevalence in spearfishing associated with the correlate (e.g., sex, age, health status)”. A little more explanation of crude vs. adjusted, and the Poisson regression would make the paper a great teaching tool.

**********

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:  Kirsten Oleson

**********

[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.

Spearfishing and public health promotion: A cross-sectional analysis of the Hawaiʻi Behavioral Risk Surveillance System Survey

PONE-D-24-30068R1

Dear Dr. Pirkle,

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,

Christopher A. Lepczyk

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: