-->PONE-D-25-35455-->-->Family and personal factors predisposing adolescents to substance abuse in high-risk urban areas-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rodas,

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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria  and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 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,

Rosemary Bassey, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

4. 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 (if provided):

[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: The phrase ‘substance abuse’ is utilised throughout the article, however this phrase is associated with stigma and negatively reinforces substance use and associated discrimination. It would be better to utilise ‘substance use’ throughout the article, even in the case of illicit drug use. Line 167 also states ‘substance users’, which again attaches stigma and moves away from person-centred language. Rephrasing to ‘adolescents who use drugs’ will help to eliminate potential stigma. The following NIH resource outlines appropriate terminology to reduce stigma in research: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/addiction-science/words-matter-preferred-language-talking-about-addiction

In terms of consent, was consent obtained from the children themselves? The emphasis is on the signature of the parents/legal guardians, but did the children also provide consent, particularly as the age range was 12-18 years old. If only parental/guardian consent was obtained, did the children feel compelled to participate, even if they did not wish to? This needs to be made clearer within the methods as the focus seems to be on parental/guardian consent.

For the statistical tests, was software utilised? If so, it should be detailed within the methods section.

The results do not mention the gender of participants. Unsure if this has been omitted for a specific reason, such as protecting participants anonymity? This needs to be clarified either in the results section or within the limitations.

Lines 357-359: this sentence links the study results to ‘genetic and environmental factors’ which lead to substance use. However, the study does not explore any genetic factors, merely the relationship between familial substance use and adolescent substance use. I would redraft this sentence to reflect the fact that the study does not explore genetic implications.

The introduction and discussion alike rely on some dated studies, much of which is over 10 years old. Both sections would benefit from the inclusion of some more recent research.

Reviewer #2: Line 83 – 92 - A more detailed definition of both emotional stability and cognitive control (executive function) and the interaction between these two systems would be useful in the introduction, For example the author states that emotional regulation plays a role in controlling behaviours, while cognitive function is defined as controlling actions – it is not clear how you are differentiating between behaviours and actions. Using widely accepted definitions around these elements and their interaction would solve this.

Similarly in lines 93 to 97 you state the interaction between emotional stability and cognitive control can influence substance abuse, but your example only considers the impact of emotional stability and not the role of cognitive function or the interaction. Expanding on this slightly would greatly improve the paper.

Line 123 – 131 is there any evidence around using these interventions with families where parents are using substances specifically? Some consideration of this should be included either here or in the discussion where recommendations are made.

Line 357 – 365 – some consideration /acknowledgement of the additional factor of availability of substances within the home meaning young people have increased opportunity to experiment would be beneficial here.

Line 368 – 379 – disparities in educational background should potentially be mentioned here. Particularly as there are strong known interactions between education and emotional and cognitive control.

**********

-->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

**********

[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.-->

Family and personal factors predisposing adolescents to substance abuse in high-risk urban areas

PONE-D-25-35455R1

Dear Dr. Jose Rodas,

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.

There are however a few minor points to address in finalizing this manuscript for publication. In the abstract and early paragraphs of the introduction the terms drug abuse, substance abuse, and SUD are all used and it is not quite clear if you are making clear differences between these three things or using them interchangeably. Between lines 68 - 76 and 76 - 90 there is some lack of flow in the writing that makes it difficult to follow. I acknowledge that this is in part from adding in new information in response to reviewer requests but feel the narrative could flow more smoothly with some minor tweaks to the structuring of these paragraphs. 

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Rosemary Bassey, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #2:

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your attention to the points raised in the reviews and for amending where required or further explaining your decision making. Rereading the article I feel there a few minor points to address prior to publication. In the abstract and early paragraphs of the introduction the terms drug abuse, substance abuse, and SUD are all used and it is not quite clear if you are making clear differences between these three things or using them interchangeably. Between lines 68 - 76 and 76 - 90 there is some lack of low in the writing that makes it difficult to follow. I acknowledge that this is in part from adding in new information in response to reviewer requests but feel the narrative could flow more smoothly with some minor tweaks to the structuring of these paragraphs. The paper is important and well written and these early paragraphs seem to lack the same strength.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********