Understanding the impact of urban exposure on obesity among middle and old-age migrants in India

Bittu Mandal; Kalandi Charan Pradhan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326096

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 25, 2024
Decision Letter - Jay Saha, Editor Dear Dr. Mandal, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 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. 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, Jay Saha 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 uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.-->--> -->-->At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.-->--> -->-->3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance.  We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal  dataset 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. -->--> -->-->4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.-->--> -->-->5. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.-->--> -->-->6. We notice that your supplementary figures and tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.-->--> -->-->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. [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: Yes 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 Editor, This article deals with a very interesting topic. The relevance of this article is undeniable. Additionally, the article is well structured, the methods of analysis are relevant. However, before its publication, some changes and additions need to be made. You will find my comments below. Sincerely yours ------------------------------ 1. In the results section, I suggest that the authors present the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. It allows to better understand bivariate and multivariate analysis. 2. In the discussion section, I suggest that the authors focus on India, taking into account the socio-demographic characteristics of the country's urban/rural areas. Yes, it's good to compare your results with those of other authors, but the discussion must take account of the country's socio-economic reality. 3. I suggest that the authors rephrase it ‘This is due to their increased likelihood of acculturation in the urban areas.’ the term acculturation is a bit pejorative. preferably, they have a better chance of adapting to the urban lifestyle and practices. 4. I suggest that the authors add a section ‘Policy implication of findings’. Reviewer #2: The study addresses a critical gap in research on rural-to-urban migration and its association with obesity in the Indian context, a topic that has been underexplored compared to Western settings. The clear association between prolonged urban residence and elevated obesity risk offers valuable insights into how lifestyle and environmental changes in urban areas contribute to obesity among migrants. I have few suggestions which is given below: Introduction The introduction provides a broad overview of the association between migration and health outcomes, specifically obesity. However, the structure could benefit from more logical flow. For example, after discussing the global relevance of rural-to-urban migration, the author could transition more smoothly into the context of obesity in India. Introducing the knowledge gap earlier in the paragraph would make the problem clearer upfront. Overall, the introduction provides a solid foundation for the study, highlighting the global and Indian context of migration and obesity. However, it could be made more concise, logically organized, and focused on the specific research gap in India. -Reorganize the introduction to first establish the global connection between migration and obesity, then introduce the Indian context and the gaps in research. Methods Methods have been clearly explained by the author. Results Results are well written with full details which will be helpful to the readers. Discussion -The lack of dietary data is a significant limitation that affects the interpretation of the findings. While the study acknowledges this gap, future research should incorporate dietary assessments to provide a more complete picture of how urban diets contribute to obesity. This could involve collecting detailed information on food consumption patterns and their relationship with obesity. -The discussion on socio-economic status and its impact on obesity could be expanded. -The observation of greater obesity risk among female migrants is an important finding. It would be helpful to explain deeper into potential reasons for this disparity, such as cultural, socio-economic, or behavioral factors that might contribute to higher obesity rates in female migrants compared to their male counterparts. -The manuscript notes that educational attainment did not show a uniform increase in obesity risk. This point could be elaborated further. Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the relationship between migration and obesity. Addressing these comments and suggestions could further enhance the impact and clarity of the research. ****** 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: Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear editor, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the thorough and insightful guidance provided during the review process of our manuscript. Your expertise and thoughtful suggestions have been instrumental in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to ensuring our research meets the highest standards of publication. The comments from the reviewers have significantly benefited the manuscript, and we have addressed them to the best of our capacity. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to ensuring our research meets the highest standards of publication. 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 � We have thoroughly reviewed and revised our manuscript to ensure it meets all the PLOS ONE style requirements. We have carefully followed the style templates provided and adhered to the file naming conventions as specified by the journal. We believe these adjustments will facilitate a smooth review and publication process. Thank you for guiding us to make these necessary changes. 2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards. At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. � A proper repository of the dataset has now been added. We also shared the replicable data through figshare. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset 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. � The data is already available in a public repository. We believe, earlier there was a mistake on our part. We now confirm the accessibility of the data through the publicly available repository 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. � Done! 5. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. � Done! 6. We notice that your supplementary figures and tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. � Done! 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. � Done! 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. � Done! Comments to the Author Reviewer 1 This article deals with a very interesting topic. The relevance of this article is undeniable. Additionally, the article is well structured, the methods of analysis are relevant. However, before its publication, some changes and additions need to be made. You will find my comments below. � Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and structure of our article, as well as the validation of our analytical methods. We are committed to addressing the changes and additions you have suggested to enhance the quality and impact of our work. 1. In the results section, I suggest that the authors present the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. It allows to better understand bivariate and multivariate analysis. � Table of the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents has been now moved from supplementary to the main manuscript. We briefly discussed the characteristics of the individuals. 2. In the discussion section, I suggest that the authors focus on India, taking into account the socio-demographic characteristics of the country's urban/rural areas. Yes, it's good to compare your results with those of other authors, but the discussion must take account of the country's socio-economic reality. � Done positively. 3. I suggest that the authors rephrase it ‘This is due to their increased likelihood of acculturation in the urban areas.’ the term acculturation is a bit pejorative. preferably, they have a better chance of adapting to the urban lifestyle and practices. � Done! 4. I suggest that the authors add a section ‘Policy implication of findings’. � A new section has now been added before the conclusion, following your instruction. Reviewer 2 The study addresses a critical gap in research on rural-to-urban migration and its association with obesity in the Indian context, a topic that has been underexplored compared to Western settings. The clear association between prolonged urban residence and elevated obesity risk offers valuable insights into how lifestyle and environmental changes in urban areas contribute to obesity among migrants. � Thank you for your encouraging comments and for recognizing the importance of our study addressing the critical gap in research on rural-to-urban migration and its association with obesity in the Indian context. We are grateful for your acknowledgment of the value our findings. I have few suggestions which is given below: Introduction The introduction provides a broad overview of the association between migration and health outcomes, specifically obesity. However, the structure could benefit from more logical flow. For example, after discussing the global relevance of rural-to-urban migration, the author could transition more smoothly into the context of obesity in India. Introducing the knowledge gap earlier in the paragraph would make the problem clearer upfront. Overall, the introduction provides a solid foundation for the study, highlighting the global and Indian context of migration and obesity. However, it could be made more concise, logically organized, and focused on the specific research gap in India.-Reorganize the introduction to first establish the global connection between migration and obesity, then introduce the Indian context and the gaps in research. � Thank you for your constructive critique regarding the structure of our introduction. We have considered your feedback and revised it accordingly, enhancing the logical flow by clearly linking the global context of migration to the specific issues of obesity in India early in the text. Methods Methods have been clearly explained by the author. Results Results are well written with full details which will be helpful to the readers. Discussion -The lack of dietary data is a significant limitation that affects the interpretation of the findings. While the study acknowledges this gap, future research should incorporate dietary assessments to provide a more complete picture of how urban diets contribute to obesity. This could involve collecting detailed information on food consumption patterns and their relationship with obesity. The discussion on socio-economic status and its impact on obesity could be expanded. � We have addressed this positively. The observation of greater obesity risk among female migrants is an important finding. It would be helpful to explain deeper into potential reasons for this disparity, such as cultural, socio-economic, or behavioral factors that might contribute to higher obesity rates in female migrants compared to their male counterparts. � Explanation has been added following your suggestion. The manuscript notes that educational attainment did not show a uniform increase in obesity risk. This point could be elaborated further. Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the relationship between migration and obesity. Addressing these comments and suggestions could further enhance the impact and clarity of the research. � Done! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: R2R.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r002
Decision Letter - Jay Saha, Editor Dear Dr. Mandal, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 01 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, Jay Saha 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: [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r003
Revision 2
26 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear Editor Thank you for providing the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript We have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the academic editor and reviewers. Following your instructions, we have uploaded the following documents: Response to Reviewers: A detailed rebuttal letter addressing each point raised by the academic editor and reviewers. Revised Manuscript with Track Changes: A marked-up version of the manuscript highlighting all the changes made to the original submission. Manuscript: A clean, unmarked version of the revised paper without tracked changes. We have ensured that the revisions align with the feedback provided and believe that the updated manuscript is stronger and more comprehensive as a result of this process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r004
Decision Letter - Hansani Madushika Abeywickrama, Editor Dear Dr. Mandal, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 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, Hansani Madushika Abeywickrama, 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 Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #3: Technical Soundness and Data Support for Conclusions Strengths: The study is well-designed, using a nationally representative dataset (LASI) and robust methods (logistic/quantile regression). The conclusions align with global literature on migration and obesity. Limitations: The cross-sectional design limits causal inference. Lack of dietary data is noted, but the authors justify this by referencing prior studies on urban dietary shifts. Statistical Analysis Appropriateness: The use of logistic regression (for binary outcomes) and quantile regression (to explore BMI distribution) is rigorous. Multicollinearity checks (VIF < 2) and sensitivity analyses (waist circumference, waist-hip ratio) strengthen validity. Suggestions: Clarify why certain covariates (e.g., alcohol/tobacco) showed inconsistent associations. Additional robustness checks (e.g., stratified analyses by gender/age) could enhance insights. Data Availability Compliance: Uploaded replicable data to figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.27266337.v1). The primary dataset is publicly available via the Gateway to Global Aging Data (www.g2aging.org). Final Assessment The manuscript is technically sound, with conclusions well-supported by data. Statistical methods are appropriate and rigorous, though minor clarifications could improve transparency. Data availability meets PLOS ONE standards after revision. The Conclusion section of the manuscript does not clearly and directly address the study's stated objectives. Here’s a breakdown of the issues and suggestions for improvement: Key Problems with the Current Conclusion Lacks Direct Link to Objectives The study aimed to: Examine the impact of rural-to-urban migration on obesity. Compare obesity risk by duration of urban residence. The conclusion vaguely summarizes findings but does not explicitly tie them back to these objectives. Too General and Repetitive It reiterates results (e.g., "prolonged urban residence is progressively associated with obesity risks") without synthesizing implications. Reviewer #4: The manuscript provides a comprehensive analysis of the association between rural-to-urban migration and obesity among middle-aged and older adults in India. The study is well-structured, methodologically sound, and addresses an important public health issue. However, some areas require clarification, refinement, or expansion to enhance the manuscript's impact and readability: - Clarify the Research Gap: The introduction highlights the lack of nationally representative studies on migration and obesity in India but could better emphasize the novelty of focusing on middle-aged and older adults. - Migration Definition: Line 143-146: Based on the definition, it seem like even participants who just moved this area for 1 day were also categorized as migrant. Is there any reference to support this? Please verify some typo errors: - Line 380: Socio-economic stata --> Socioeconomic status ****** 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: Yes: Ananda Chandrasekara Reviewer #4: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r005
Revision 3
9 May 2025 Author Response Provided in the file. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responce to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r006
Decision Letter - Hansani Madushika Abeywickrama, Editor Understanding the impact of urban exposure on obesity among middle and old-age migrants in India PONE-D-24-28968R3 Dear Dr. Mandal, 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, Hansani Madushika Abeywickrama, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I would like to commend the authors on a well-structured and clearly written manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #3: Strengths: The manuscript is structured logically, including clearly defined sections such as Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. The language used throughout is predominantly clear, formal, and consistent with academic standards. Technical terms and statistical methods (logistic regression, quantile regression, BMI, waist circumference, etc.) are described adequately and appropriately. Areas for Improvement: Although the manuscript is broadly well-written, there are several issues related to language, clarity, grammar, and style that need addressing: Clarity and Precision: The Abstract is clear but can be more concise and direct. For instance, clearly stating the implications or recommendations briefly would enhance reader engagement. The Introduction section effectively provides context, but some sentences could be more precise, particularly regarding the exact link between migration and obesity in the Indian context. Grammar and Syntax: A few sentences are lengthy and occasionally awkwardly constructed, making comprehension slightly challenging at points. Breaking these sentences into shorter, clearer phrases could improve readability significantly. Examples of sentences needing grammatical refinement: Original: "However, whether migration to urban areas ages has any impact on obesity in India is inconclusive and scarce." Improved: "However, evidence regarding the impact of rural-to-urban migration on obesity among older adults in India remains inconclusive and limited." Original: "To fulfil the study objective, this study employed logistic and quantile regression techniques." Improved: "Logistic and quantile regression analyses were employed to fulfill the study objective." Terminology and Definitions: Consistent and precise definitions of key concepts (e.g., clear distinction between obesity, overweight, abdominal obesity) should be consistently maintained throughout. Consistency: The manuscript occasionally switches between past and present tense. Maintaining consistent tense usage, especially within the Methods and Results sections, is important for readability and academic rigor. Punctuation and Formatting: Some minor punctuation inconsistencies (e.g., misplaced commas, semicolons, or spacing issues) should be addressed. Consistent formatting of tables and figures, with clear and detailed captions, would enhance intelligibility. ****** 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: Yes: Prof. Ananda Chandrasekara ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r007
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Hansani Madushika Abeywickrama, Editor PONE-D-24-28968R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mandal, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Hansani Madushika Abeywickrama Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326096.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .