PONE-D-24-46311The nexus between environmental concern and future childbearing aspirations among university students in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

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.

Three experts have reviewed the manuscript noting a number of limitations on the statistical reporting and the existence of unwarranted claims in the introduction and discussion that should be removed or modified. In addition, the article would benefit from going through the Strobe checklist (https://www.strobe-statement.org/download/strobe-checklist-cross-sectional-studies-pdf) to ensure that all technical aspects have been addressed. The structure also should be enhanced: there are separate analysis on which the rationale and the rationale of the sequence is not clear. Also regarding whether to use a scale vs all dychotomous items. The methods section and the research objectives should be made clearer so that the analysis flows from these. There is also a problem on sample size that might not be adequate for some of the more sophisticated analysis. As you know, due to multicollinearity, variances in multiple variable methods are higher that for simple two-variable analysis that you have used to ascertain sample size. This should be acknowledged as a limitation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 06 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [Because respondents were notified that their information would be published, the datasets collected and/or analyzed during the current study are available as supplementary file.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition ).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. We note that Figure 1 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 Figure 1 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/

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

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: Yes

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: This paper presents interesting primary research that explores the nexus between environmental concerns and future childbearing aspirations among university students in Bangladesh. The author seeks to address an appropriate gap in the literature on this topic given this question has been underexplored in low- and middle-income settings, including Bangladesh.

1. Referencing and assumptions: several claims are made in the text without an adequate source for the information. For example:

Line 47: Despite there being a reference for this, the author should clarify the location of Davis et al.’s study to avoid confusion that this statement is generalisable to all women.

Line 56: The statement “according to research, having children will damage the ecosystem” needs to be clearer on what research the author is referring to and this should be listed as a citation.

Line 96: The statement that university students in Bangladesh “are more aware of family planning and concerned about the environment” needs to be backed up by a citation.

Line 143/44: The authors appear to advocate for a viewpoint which risks introducing personal bias. The authors should clarify why this perspective is being promoted and ensure framing of items do not reflect bias.

Line 584: The statement “women in the country may exhibit lower levels of ambition” is not supported by a source. It is unclear what ‘ambition’ means in this context, so further clarification is necessary.

I recommend that the authors review their manuscript to ensure that all assertions are appropriately supported with references and any subjective viewpoints should be clearly distinguished from evidence-based conclusions.

2. Structure and readability: while the use of sub-headings contributes to the logical flow of the paper, the structure within sections – particularly the introduction and literature review – could be improved. For example, lines 121-139 could be organised by dividing studies into those that found environmental concerns led to lower desires to have children vs. those that found the opposite conclusion. Language improvements are also needed. Typos, grammar issues, and repetition currently affect readability of the study. I have listed a few examples of each below but not an extensive list for the purposes of brevity. I would encourage the authors to thoroughly review the paper, and collaboration with a writing coach or copyeditor may be beneficial if possible.

Line 39: Arnocky spelt incorrectly.

Line 58-60: Sentence structures are unclear.

Line 207: Typo for ‘participating’

Lines 234/235: Repeated sentence.

3. Definitions and terminology: Key terms should be clearly defined and used consistently. This is particularly important when referring to childbearing aspirations/objectives/desires/intentions/goals which are all used throughout the manuscript, are undefined, and may imply very different meanings. For example, the author could consider the Traits-Desires-Intentions-Behaviours Model (Miller 1994; 2011) which explores the difference between ‘desire’ and ‘intention’ in the context of reproductive decision-making. The authors ought to either use consistent terminology in this case and refer to the same term that was used on the survey to participants, or be really clear on different definitions if using multiple terms. Definitions should also be delineated for how the authors are interpreting ‘environmental concern’. Finally, acronyms need to be expanded when first used in the text which applies to line 210 and line 246.

4. Methodology/Results: certain elements of the methodology and results sections require greater clarification. Examples are listed below:

There ought to be a reference for the ‘Research Randomizer’ tool.

Line 270-272 and 278-281: the authors state that only three out of eight questions met the necessary criteria. How does this validate the tools if less than 50% were satisfied?

Line 290: gender percentage is incorrectly reported in the text (correct to 48.2% aligned with Table 5).

Line 296: this is the only time Agricultural and Mineral Science is referred to as a participant’s degree. This puts the percentage for degrees off by +0.5%. The authors should clarify if this was a participant/s degree or not and adjust the text and table 5 accordingly.

The survey questions ought to be included in the appendix to give readers insight into the tools used.

5. Limitations: the limitations section could be expanded to include, for example, self-reporting bias inherent to surveys, and the issues with using binary measures for complex variables e.g., classifying homes as vulnerable or not vulnerable to climate change (line 242).

6. Discussion: The discussion would benefit from further exploration of the broader range of factors influencing childbearing decisions. Whilst the study is focussed on the impact of environmental concern, other considerations – such as personal finances, partner preferences, social support etc. – are also likely to influence student’s opinions so it is worth addressing this, even if briefly in a couple of sentences.

7. Conclusion: While the data supports the conclusions made, the framing that students who are environmentally concerns are more likely to want children, yet want fewer of them is confusing. It should be clarified that while participants with environmental concerns may still want children, the findings also showed that they plan on limiting family size due to these concerns. This framing should also be addressed in the abstract (line 24). Additionally, the conclusion should be limited to a concise summary of the study which avoids the introduction of new ideas.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

Avoid overusing "laundry lists" when constructing paragraphs, as they can obscure the main message the author wants to convey. For example, in lines 75–79, it would be more effective to summarize the points about family planning in 1–2 concise sentences.

Line 81:The introduction of the Bangladesh context feels abrupt and disconnected in this paragraph. Consider providing context first—such as explaining why densely populated countries might be more impacted by future childbearing aspirations. Then, introduce Bangladesh as an example, along with other similarly populated countries, to offer a more comprehensive perspective.

Line 96: “The question, “How do university students in Bangladesh, who are more aware of family planning and concerned about the environment, make their decisions about having children in the future?” lacks sufficient explanation and justification. It is unclear why university students are presumed to be more aware of family planning or have heightened environmental concerns. Providing data or references to support these assumptions would strengthen the argument and improve clarity.

Methods and Results

Line 234-235: repeated sentences.

Can you clarify whether you are using factor analysis or component analysis? Based on the wording, "Component analysis extraction technique" likely refers to principal component analysis (PCA). However, PCA is a data reduction technique and not ideal for establishing convergent validity compared to factor analysis.

Line 269: The phrase "average factor loading correlation" is unconventional. Factor loadings and correlations are distinct concepts.

Is there any specific reason to analyze the environmental concerns variable items independently? Please elaborate.

Discussion,

Line 492: How do the data of Americans and Chinese relate to the findings?

A more thorough review in the introduction will enable the authors to produce a more empirically and theoretically informed discussion.

Overall

Many variables are examined in the study; however, the lack of a comprehensive literature review limits the depth of the discussion on the findings. For instance, in lines 506–508, how can the increased willingness to have children among respondents with specific demographic characteristics be explained? For example, Muslim respondents are more likely to express a desire for future childbearing. Could this tendency be related to their religious beliefs?

Reviewer #3: Thank you for letting me read what seems to be a methodologically stringent and sound study. Before being publishable, I nonetheless think the manuscript needs to strengthen its relevance for both theory and practice. I have some suggestions for this at the end of my comments.

The very first paragraph is about environmental concerns in general, resulting in a bit vague introduction. If the topic is how such concerns are related to fertility intentions, then this (including why this topic is important) should be presented already in the first paragraph.

The description of the Bangladesh context is useful, and should perhaps have its own header? For instance, “Context of the study”.

I am not very experienced with quantitative methods, but I nonetheless did not catch a rationale for having dichotomous items for the variable “The impact of environmental concerns on future childbearing”. Beyond this, my comments are indeed restricted by the fact that I am not well trained to see limitations in the described procedures and statistical analyses.

What I do think this manuscript is lacking, is a clearer idea of how and why the results are relevant. For instance, I do not think the statement “This study plays an important role in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Bangladesh” (p. 34-35) is justified by the manuscript. The relation to the SDGs has to be elaborated on, and I also think the manuscript should go in dialogue with the article “At the intersection of climate justice and reproductive justice” (Sasser, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.860).

**********

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: 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.

PONE-D-24-46311R1The nexus between environmental concern and future childbearing aspirations among university students in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

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 comments of the editor have not been addressed. I reiterate:

“The structure also should be enhanced: there are separate analysis on which the rationale and the rationale of the sequence is not clear. Also regarding whether to use a scale vs all dychotomous items. The methods section and the research objectives should be made clearer so that the analysis flows from these. There is also a problem on sample size that might not be adequate for some of the more sophisticated analysis. As you know, due to multicollinearity, variances in multiple variable methods are higher that for simple two-variable analysis that you have used to ascertain sample size. This should be acknowledged as a limitation.”

In addition, citation style is not according to PLOS ONE numbered style. This needs to be fixed.

The questionnaire, currently included as an appendix to the main manuscript, should be provided as a separate file.

Regarding the first reviewer, who was unavailable, apparently the points have been addressed. The second reviewer provides some optional suggestions. Reviewer 3 indicates that language must be improved. The editor concurs on the need to copy-edit the manuscript.

Examples of issues that should be addressed, but there are many. The whole writing up needs to be improved.

• L. 83: The reading is now very different. “Highly productive” does not seem to apply given the location of Bangladesh in GDP rankings. The beautifulness of the rivers is also a subjective term such as those reviewer 1 was indicating in the previous revision.
• L. 196-198: Remove consideration on the buildings of SUST unless it is deemed relevant for some reason. Discussion should be based on academic program and level.
• L. 245: literature should be singular.
• Example of needed rephrasing is “measurement and analysis”. Some issues with language: “The researchers coded the following predictors into
• 269 categorical variables for binary logistic regression and other analyses:”. Why mixing the analysis with the coding? Was the coding ex-post carried out by the researchers as this sentence implies? It seems this was a closed questionnaire so that you should not mention “coding” at all. More important: we do not need to know the numbers of the codes at all! Also, on this: “which faculty 272 members are currently studying” you mean “field of study”. As commented, grammar needs to be revised and improved.
• L. 278: What is meant by “graphical distributions were created using RStudio”. You mean graphics were produced with R (RStudio is the gui. “Graphical distributions” is meaningless. Statistical distributions are not graphical.)
• Figure 3: The axis should be clearly identified: percentage what?
• Table 5 should include the respective Ns as a new column.
• Table 6 is missing N
• L. 467 and later: It is not specified whether the poisson regression includes also those reporting not wanting to have children codified as 0 children. It should, otherwise you are not dealing with the complete distribution.
• For discussion: You are including as a variable “Vulnerability to home locality” (which probably should be “vulnerability of”. Note this is student’s perception. It might well be that students living in the same locality fill this up differently.

In general, as commented, there are still many problems of structure and language. If these have not been amended the manuscript cannot be considered for publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #2: Context of Study: While the paper provides an environmental description of Bangladesh, it would be beneficial to include a more detailed demographic context, particularly characteristics relevant to the studied participants (e.g., religious beliefs, education levels, socioeconomic status). Additionally, comparing these demographics to national data would help illustrate the representativeness of the sample and strengthen the study’s generalizability.

Limitations: Has any effort been made to ensure that respondents interpreted the questions consistently? While it is commendable that the study acknowledges its limitations, it would be helpful to outline any steps taken to minimize potential misunderstandings, such as piloting the survey, providing clarifications, or conducting follow-up checks. This would enhance the study’s methodological rigor.

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the work you have put in to respond to all three reviewers, and I think your manuscript is a lot better now. My two main concerns now are language and the use of Sasser (2024).

- Language: I find parts of the manuscript to be a bit hard to read, as many sentences are long and sometimes confusing. You should go through the whole manuscript trying to make the language clearer. Example: "The analysis revealed that factors such as gender, religion, CGPA, disciplinary backgrounds, home locality susceptible to climate change or EWEs, childlessness have a beneficial effect on the environment, and going childless is a better way to help the environment than recycling, found to be statistically significant." (p. 30, lines 536-540). Furthermore, the last two factors listed here seem more like items to me?

- Sasser (2024): You write that you have tried to "incorporate relevant discussions on climate justice and reproductive justice related to our findings". The way I read your discussion, you refer briefly to Sasser (2024) without actually discussing how your findings relate to her arguments. This must be fixed.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-46311R2The nexus between environmental concern and future childbearing aspirations among university students in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

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.

A reviewer is still concerned about interpretation issues that you should fix.In addition, there are still opinionated terms that should be avoided. One instance is the expression "adverse reproductive consequences" that appears twice. You should replace it by a non-opinionated term such as lower reproductive intention or something along this line. In general the complete sentence " Our research also indicates that environmental degradation 645 can result in population decline due to adverse reproductive consequences. " shoud be removed since this is clearly beyond the analysis of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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,

José Antonio Ortega, 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.

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

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: I appreciate that you have elaborated on how your work might relate to Sasser's. It will probably seem to you that I have a hang-up on her work, but since I now have commented on this aspect of your manuscript, I think I am obliged to follow up on it. The way you discuss your results in relation to Sasser, is still not convincing to me. Frankly, I find it a bit hard to follow what your argument actually is, other than that you both address reproductive issues and environmental concerns. I read your discussion as if you are saying that it makes less sense to view reproductive issues as a product of individual concern, when the current context is one of environmental degradation (i.e. that the context of environmental degradation is more relevant than individuals' concerns when it comes to reproductive choices). If this is what you are saying, this should be spelled out more clearly. If you, on the other hand, argue that your engagement with Sasser is mostly through that you both emphasize climate anxieties, this should also be made clearer. If there is a combination, as suggested by the sentence "While the result reflects the environmental concern, it also raises critical questions about whether such beliefs are freely chosen or shaped by structural factors", then this must also be written out as clearer arguments based on your results and how they contribute to Sasser's framework.

My specific concern with how you discuss Sasser, mirrors a more general concern regarding the clarity of your discussion. For instance, when you have revised the sentences on bottom p. 31 and top p. 32, I think you could still do more to make the language clear, correct, and unambiguous. To illustrate what I mean, I'll provide specific suggestions for these two sentences:

Current: "The analysis revealed that factors such as gender, religion, CGPA, disciplinary backgrounds, perceived vulnerability of home locality to climate change or EWEs were significantly associated with future childbearing intention."

Suggestion: Add an "and" before "perceived".

Current: "In addition, two specific items- childlessness has a beneficial effect on the environment, and going childless is a better way to help the environment than recycling- were also found to be statistically significant."

Suggestion:"In addition, two specific items (i.e. "childlessness has a beneficial effect on the environment"; "going childless is a better way to help the environment than recycling") were also found to be statistically significant."

**********

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 #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-46311R3The nexus between environmental concern and future childbearing aspirations among university students in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

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 reviewer that was still pending acceptance was not available. The comments seem to be implemented.My specific comments on avoiding opinionated terms has been implemented, but I am missing among the limitations of the study an acknowledgement that this is an observational study and that no causal relation between specific concerns and childbearing intentions can be inferred. There could be non-causal mechanisms such as people with certain traits having correlated opinions and attitudes in the dimensions explored. Please introduce a paragraph along these lines in the limitations, and the paper could be published.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 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,

José Antonio Ortega, 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.

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

[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.

The nexus between environmental concern and future childbearing aspirations among university students in Bangladesh

PONE-D-24-46311R4

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The limitation has been added as suggested on the impossibility of inferring causal claims from observational data. The reviewers' concerns had been addressed in previous drafts.

Reviewers' comments: