Dear Dr. Perez Ferrer,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

I regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in its current form. 

The reviewers have provided valuable feedback on your manuscript. Therefore, we recommend that you thoroughly address all the comments provided by the reviewers and revise your manuscript accordingly.

We understand that revising your manuscript may require substantial effort, but we believe that addressing the reviewers' comments will significantly improve the quality and impact of your research. We encourage you to carefully consider all the feedback provided and to make the necessary revisions accordingly.

Please note that your revision may be subject to further review and that this initial decision does not guarantee acceptance.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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 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,

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes, 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

[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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This paper offers a unique perspective on traffic safety in Mexico City, addressing a gap in existing research through a comparative analysis of various data sources.

Specific recommendations are as follows:

1. The paper utilizes multiple publicly available datasets for analysis and presents a comprehensive trend analysis of indicators such as collision rates, casualty rates, and fatality rates. The data processing methods align with scientific standards; however, it is recommended that the authors provide a more detailed description of the statistical methods, particularly regarding the handling of missing data and outliers. The current explanation of how missing data are addressed is brief, and a clearer description of how missing values are imputed and how potential duplicate records and outliers are managed would enhance the transparency of the analysis.

2. In the results section, the authors highlight significant differences in collision and mortality rates across the datasets. However, some paragraphs are dense with information, and the sentences are long and complex. Simplifying the expression and breaking down the trends for each dataset into separate, more digestible segments would improve readability and clarity.

3. The discussion of the reasons behind the dataset differences covers several aspects (e.g., data collection methods, limitations, etc.). It would benefit from being divided into smaller paragraphs, with each topic addressed separately. This would enhance the organization and flow of the section, making it more accessible to readers.

4. The conclusions could further elaborate on the limitations of the data sources. For instance, while the authors mention the underestimation of deaths in the AXA and ATUS datasets, a deeper analysis of the specific reasons for this underestimation, along with additional background information, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of these discrepancies.

Reviewer #2: My main concern is the research contribution of the paper is marginal and difficult to be identified. It is unconvincing to me the innovativeness and quality of the paper is sufficiently significant to considered to be published in this journal.

Here are main issues:

1. First of all: How does Mexico City law define "road traffic collisions"? An accident is if at least one moving vehicle is involved – is this the case in Mexico City?

2. How is the term "casualties in an accident" defined in your country? Does it refer to a person who died at the scene of the accident, or does it also include deaths occurring within a certain period after the accident (for example, in some countries, it is 30 days after the accident)? If this is also the case in Mexico City, did you take these deaths into account?

2. AXA data definitely cannot be used to assess and analyze the state of safety, given that this database contains only information about vehicles insured by that insurance company. How many such vehicles are there in relation to the total number of vehicles, and are data collected on all accidents (regardless of the consequences)? Why do you consider these data after all?

3. What is the difference between the third and fourth data sources?

4. How do the data from the third and fifth sources differ? In principle, the source of these data is the same – the Justice Department, so how can they differ from each other?

5. What do the codes related to source 6 represent? And based on what criteria were those particular ones selected?

6. What is the difference between insured and registered vehicles? Can a registered vehicle be uninsured, and conversely, can an insured vehicle be unregistered? And why is the number of insured vehicles even considered?

7. Most important: the paper includes a subtitle "Statistical Analysis," but no actual analysis is presented – which statistical method did you use and for what purpose? The title refers to a "trend," but in the paper, apart from the changes in selected indicators from year to year and their percentage differences, we do not see anything else.

8. The paper lacks an explanation of the motivation for the study. Which databases have been used in previous analyses of traffic safety in Mexico City? Why is there no literature review of previous research – what was used, in what way, and what are the shortcomings of used methods (databases)? Are there studies that research similar questions with usage of different databases?

Based on the above issues, I have to reject this manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript "Trends in collisions and traffic mortality rates in Mexico City, using different data sources" examines the trends in road traffic collisions and mortality rates in Mexico City from 2015 to 2022, utilizing six open-access datasets. The study is significant in improving road safety data quality. However, there are areas that need improvement in the methodology, discussion of results, and conclusions.

1. Although the paper mentions using multiple data sources to compare the trends in traffic accidents and mortality rates, it does not provide a detailed background on why these four specific indicators (total collision rate, injury-related collision rate, fatal collision rate, and mortality rate) were chosen, or why these six datasets were selected. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify the motivation and significance of these choices in the introduction.

2. The paper includes several figures illustrating the trend variations across different datasets. However, the captions are somewhat brief, and the explanations for the data changes are not always clear. For example, the magnitude of changes mentioned in Figures 1 and 2 should be further analyzed to understand the underlying causes of these trends. Additionally, the figure titles and explanations in the main text should be more consistent to avoid confusion for the reader. Furthermore, it is recommended to supplement the analysis with additional statistical methods, such as time-series analysis or regression models, to assess trend changes more comprehensively.

3. In the discussion section, it is recommended to provide specific policy suggestions to help improve the road safety data system in Mexico City, emphasizing the importance of interdepartmental collaboration.

4. In the conclusion, the authors highlight that the current datasets do not provide a comprehensive picture of road safety and emphasize the importance of integrating more comprehensive data. While this viewpoint is valid, the authors should further discuss how to gradually transition to a unified information system and the potential impacts and challenges that such a system may bring.

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Perez Ferrer,

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 Oct 16 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,

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 

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:

Reviewer #1:

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the authors' careful response to my previous review comments. The authors have made positive improvements in methodology transparency, discussion structure, and analysis of data source limitations, which have enhanced the overall quality of the paper.

However, I still have concerns about the presentation of the results section. While the authors explained the logic of organizing by indicator type rather than by dataset, which indeed helps maintain consistency in comparisons, the issues of high information density and complex sentence structure have not been fundamentally addressed. Key findings are still buried in lengthy paragraphs, requiring readers to extract main information from complex sentence structures. I suggest the authors further simplify the presentation, consider highlighting important numerical findings in a more prominent way, or add subheadings to break up dense information.

Additionally, while the newly added policy recommendations have practical value, the connection between this section and the preceding research findings could be more coherent. I suggest more clearly explaining how these policy recommendations are derived from the research findings to strengthen the logical flow of the argument.

This study fills an important gap in road safety data quality assessment and has good application prospects. I recommend minor revision before acceptance. I hope the authors can focus on optimizing the presentation of the results section to make key findings more easily identifiable and understandable to readers.

**********

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

**********

[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

Trends in collisions and traffic mortality rates in Mexico City: A comparison of six data sources

PONE-D-25-05805R2

Dear Dr. Perez Ferrer,

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. 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,

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: