PONE-D-25-21762Addressing food insecurity among U.S. refugees: Insights from UtahPLOS ONE

Dear Sharareh,

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 Jul 20 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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2.  In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that oral consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“We received funding from the University of Utah’s School of Medicine: FY24 Vice President for Research Incentive Seed Grant Competition”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

“Funding: We received funding from the University of Utah’s School of Medicine: FY24 Vice President for Research Incentive Seed Grant Competition. Interviewees: We truly appreciate our part-time staff who conducted the interviews. Thank you, Lin Alsubhi, Juliet Munyambanza, and Mahsa Qaderi.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“We received funding from the University of Utah’s School of Medicine: FY24 Vice President for Research Incentive Seed Grant Competition”

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

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that “De-identified transcripts can be shared upon signing an agreement prior to release.”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

6. 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.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please submit your revised manuscript within next 15 working days.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to Authors

Congratulations on completing this important project, which sheds light on the food security status of refugees and addresses a key gap in existing knowledge. I would be honored to offer a few suggestions that may help strengthen the manuscript, should you find them relevant.

Title

The current title may give the impression that this is a review article, when in fact it reports original research. To better reflect the nature of the study, it is recommended to specify the study design—for example, by indicating that qualitative methods were used. This will help clarify the article's methodological approach and contribution for potential readers. Additionally, the title could be more focused by incorporating key components of the findings, such as the circumstances under which refugees are most vulnerable and their preferred strategies for addressing food insecurity.

Abstract

[Line 26-27] The clear identification of the research gap is a strong aspect of the study. Clearly stating the objective of the study would enhance the clarity and focus of the manuscript.

[Line 28] Including the sampling method would be a valuable addition. It would also be helpful to briefly describe the process of refugee recruitment.

Introduction

[Additional suggestion] The content is well-structured and informative. However, providing additional information on what refugees are permitted or restricted from doing upon arrival in the U.S. would help enlighten international readers and offer a more comprehensive understanding of their resettlement experience.

Methods

[line 105] How about the duration of arriving at U.S.? No exclusion? How about if the refugee come alone? Refugee from food insecure household?

[line 116] Any permission needed for conducting the study at the resettlement centers? The information might be beneficial the future studies which are planned to conduct data collection at the resettlement centers.

[line 116] Could you clarify how the study determined that the number of interviews conducted was sufficient to capture comprehensive and meaningful insights?

[line 120] It is recommended to insert a subheading titled 'Instruments' to clearly present the tools or materials used for data collection.

[Additional suggestion] It would be helpful to include any steps taken to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the qualitative data. Additionally, providing information about the interviewers—such as their training and experience in conducting qualitative research—would strengthen the credibility of the study.

Results

[line 195] Are there any participant quotes related to 'cost of food' and 'the inability to afford food' provided in the supplementary file? These quotes are not presented in the main text.

[line 200 & 274] It is recommended to remove the company names to protect privacy and ensure confidentiality for the organizations involved.

[line 358] It would be helpful to provide an explanation of the term 'champion,' especially since it may not be familiar to international readers.

Discussion

[line 409] It may be beneficial to categorize the themes in the results section into 'income-related' and 'non-income-related' barriers. This would provide a clearer reflection of the distinct challenges faced by refugees.

[Additional suggestion] How have other countries addressed similar issues? Are there any solutions or best practices from other countries that could be applied or learned from in addressing these challenges?

Conclusion

[Additional suggestion] What is the potential feasibility of implementing the suggested methods in addressing food insecurity (FI)?

Reviewer #2: The methodology should be more clearly stated. The result should be presented with some graphs, not only tables. The strength and limitation should be clearly stated. All through English, grammar correction is needed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohammad Mohinul Islam

**********

[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.

Addressing food insecurity among U.S. refugees, considering the temporal patterns of food insecurity after resettlement: Qualitative insights from Utah.

PONE-D-25-21762R1

Dear Dr. Sharareh,

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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: