Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 18, 2025
Decision Letter - Immaculate Sabelile Tenza, Editor

Dear Dr. Kawazoe,

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: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished.

  • Address all comments by reviewers, especial those on the attached documents from reviewer 1 and 3.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2026 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 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,

Immaculate Sabelile Tenza, PhD

Guest 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 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.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data sets are available upon request from: kawazoe@nucba.ac.jp

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.

5. 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.

Additional Editor Comments :

Thank you for choosing our journal for publication

Kindly respond to the reviewers comments

Language editing is recommended to the manuscript

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: The manuscript has a potential to contribute to the body of knowledge. There are minor corrections as indicated in the uploaded file which, when addressed can improve the quality of the manuscript. The author is directed to the uploaded file for detailed comments

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and data well presented. However, being the first study of its kind, the authors may rephrase their first sentence in their abstract to read .."their healthy literacy as a key concern for ensuring equitable access to healthcare is unknown." Further, under the section named Data analysis, the authors have stated the software used and the descriptive analyses, however, they need to specify the tests and model (s) used in the study.

Reviewer #3: Abstract: Specify the health literacy tools used (HLS-SF12, funHLS).

Methods: Clarify the recruitment window (28/07/2024 to 16/01/2025 seems unusually long or is a typo for 2023-2024?).

Ethics: The consent procedure ("consent... considered to be given by the act of completing the questionnaire") should be explicitly labeled as implied consent. in scientific research informed consent is often best practice.

References: Formatting is inconsistent (some titles capitalized, others not). Check journal style.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Gopolang Gause

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Patrick M. Mutua

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-55029_reviewer.pdf
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-55029.pdf
Revision 1

Response to Review Comments to the Author

We sincerely thank the Academic Editor and three reviewers for your careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have substantially helped us improve the clarity, transparency, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has a potential to contribute to the body of knowledge. There are minor corrections as indicated in the uploaded file which, when addressed can improve the quality of the manuscript. The author is directed to the uploaded file for detailed comments

Comment:

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments. All our responses for your comments are written in the uploaded file.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and data well presented. However, being the first study of its kind, the authors may rephrase their first sentence in their abstract to read: "their healthy literacy as a key concern for ensuring equitable access to healthcare is unknown." Further, under the section named Data analysis, the authors have stated the software used and the descriptive analyses, however, they need to specify the tests and model (s) used in the study.

Comment:

We replaced the sentence to make the focus of the study clear. Thank you for your precise advice.

This revision can be found in the Abstract (Lines 2–3).

For the data analysis, we added the sentence "A goodness-of-fit test was used to compare men and women in Table 7”.

This revision can be found in Materials and methods (Lines 90).

Reviewer #3:

Abstract: Specify the health literacy tools used (HLS-SF12, funHLS).

Comment:

We used the HLS-SF12 as a self-reported tool and the funHLS as a test-based tool. Table 6 shows the result based on the former tool and Table 7 shows the result based on the latter.

Methods: Clarify the recruitment window (28/07/2024 to 16/01/2025 seems unusually long or is a typo for 2023-2024?).

Comment:

We replaced the date expression 28/07/2024, 16/01/2025 by July 28, 2024, January 16, 2025, respectively.

Ethics: The consent procedure ("consent... considered to be given by the act of completing the questionnaire") should be explicitly labeled as implied consent. in scientific research informed consent is often best practice.

Comment:

In the first part of questionnaire, ethical explanations were written. We asked participants to read them before answering the questionnaire and to answer it only if they got informed consent. The implied consent was provided. We rewrote this process of informed consent in detail in the Ethical statement.

References: Formatting is inconsistent (some titles capitalized, others not). Check journal style.

Comment:

We corrected formatting inconsistency of capital letters in the References according to the journal style.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Immaculate Sabelile Tenza, Editor

Health literacy assessment and healthcare access difficulties of Vietnamese migrants in Japan: a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-25-55029R1

Dear Dr. Kawazoe,

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,

Immaculate Sabelile Tenza, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Immaculate Sabelile Tenza, Editor

PONE-D-25-55029R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Kawazoe,

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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Immaculate Sabelile Tenza

Academic Editor

PLOS One

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 .