Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJune 6, 2019 |
---|
PONE-D-19-16134 Association between Housing Tenure and Self-Rated Health in Japan: Findings from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey PLOS ONE Dear Dr Tomioka, 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. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sungwoo Lim, DrPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [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: This is a well written paper describing research on housing and health in underresearched context of Japan. As authors note, the surrounding neighbourhood may be part of the explanation on why housing tenure might matter, so it would be useful for readers if authors could include research on neighbourhoods and health in Japan. There isn't much but some to look at include Lui et al https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204910 loo et al https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1271306 Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. While this study is not novel, I do believe it makes a worthy contribution to the literature, as it provides evidence that the housing tenure-health relationship holds in the Japanese context. The methodology is sound and so are the conclusions that flow from the results. I have two main suggestions for improvement. Firstly, the paper would be strengthened by providing more background information about the Japanese context (i.e., provide rationale for why it is important to examine this relationship in Japan). Is there any reason to believe the housing tenure-health relationship would not hold in Japan? Secondly, the paper is concise, well-organized, and flows. However, while the meaning is clear, there are quite a few instances where the English wording/phrasing/grammar choices are unconventional (e.g., “for the purpose of gathering fundamental materials”. The paper would be improved by being edited for style, grammar, and word usage. Below are my detailed comments about each section of the manuscript. Abstract - The abstract is clearly written. Introduction - There are a couple of instances where the number for the reference isn’t in brackets (e.g., Introduction - 2nd paragraph, 4th line, 6 should be in brackets) - I recommend adding a sentence or two to explain how HT-related factors (e.g., home ownership rate and housing administration policies) may affect the HT-health relationship. - I recommend that after this sentence “To the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined the association between detailed types of HT and health in Japan”, an explanation of how the Japanese context is unique and why this is worthy avenue of study is added. Why wouldn’t the HT-health relationship hold in Japan? Please include more rationale for this study. - Please write the study questions as questions, as they are not written as questions in their current form. - I recommend explaining/clarifying the difference between questions 2 and 3. Methods - Please address the following questions: o Why was the 2010 survey used and not a more recent one? It was mentioned that the CSLC is an annual survey. o Why were the researchers limited to a sample of 36,387 households when data was collected from 229,785 households (15% of the original size)? o Was more than one household member included in the sample? If so, did the authors control for potential clustering (i.e., violation of the independence assumption)? o What was the rationale for dichotomizing SRH? o Is the dependent variable SRH (not poor SRH and good SRH was the reference category)? - Suggestions to increase clarity: o Restate the independent variable as being HT, which has five categories (owner-occupier was the reference category) o Change ‘smoking habit’ to ‘smoking status’ o Adding a flow chart showing how the cohort was created would be helpful (and would make the text in this section more concise). Suggestion to include the percentage of people excluded for each reason in addition to the frequencies. o I had to do a little background research to understand why Poisson regression was used and not logistic regression. It might be helpful to include a one sentence explanation on why Poisson regression was performed. - Thanks for including the S1 Table. In the limitation section, please address any bias that may have resulted by excluding a group of people who were older than those included in the study. Results - It seems a bit odd that that those who were living in provided housing had the highest percentage married (more than 70%) and the highest percentage living alone (almost 30%). I recommend addressing this seemingly conflicting finding. - The statistical test results are missing from Table 1. It was noted below the table that chi-square and ANOVA tests were performed. Discussion - This study did not include any minority groups; suggestion to drop mention of this as a vulnerable group. - The authors suggest that the housing environment may contribute to poor health. Is unsanitary conditions, inadequate garbage disposal and sewage treatment, poor ventilation, etc. a problem in Japan? - In the Japanese context, why might home owners engage in healthier behaviors than other HT groups? In Japan, is social housing found in neighbourhoods with lower social capital? - From a policy perspective, how are these results useful? General Questions: - Does the journal have a policy about the use of the term ‘subject’ versus ‘participant’? - The authors used the term ‘gender’, not ‘sex’. Which word should be used in this context? ********** 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
Association between Housing Tenure and Self-Rated Health in Japan: Findings from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey PONE-D-19-16134R1 Dear Dr. Tomioka, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Sungwoo Lim, DrPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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: Thanks to the authors for their detailed responses to my questions/comments. I appreciate the time and effort they invested in revising the paper. I noticed two very minor corrections that needs to be made. The "b" in "Because" on page 16 line 236 should be a lowercase "b". "PR" needs to be changed to "OR" on page 21 line 268. Otherwise, this is an excellent paper and worthy of publication! ********** 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 |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-19-16134R1 Association between Housing Tenure and Self-Rated Health in Japan: Findings from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey Dear Dr. Tomioka: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sungwoo Lim 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 .