The long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on financial insecurity in vulnerable families: Findings from the Born in Bradford Covid-19 longitudinal study

Sian Reece; Josie Dickerson; Brian Kelly; Rosemary R. C. McEachan; Kate E. Pickett

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295064

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 22, 2023
22 May 2023 Decision Letter - Wajiha Haq, Editor PONE-D-23-05276The long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on financial insecurity in vulnerable families: findings from the Born in Bradford Covid-19 longitudinal study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reece, 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 06 2023 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, Wajiha Haq, PhD 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 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. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. [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: Thank you for inviting me to review this comprehensive and interesting piece of work. Covid-19 has specifically devastated global well-being and all walks of life in 2020 and 2021. In this regard, this study has an essential and conducted critical study design. However, I want to add some sticky notes that will enhance the work's acceptability and quality and must be addressed before recommending it for publication. 1) A term used in abstract IMD, what is it? Be careful using abbreviations in the abstract and the main body of the paper before using their full form. 2) Please elaborate on the rationale behind using the ethnic code and their selection. Why did authors make a separate code for non-white British, Pakistani heritage, and others? Why didn't they consider the other ethnicity separately? Is it a focused study on Pakistani heritage mothers? 3) Literature on stringent lockdown measures must also be added and compared with the UK government because the survey was conducted during this phase. In this regard, a couple of studies suggested. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05912 10.5055/jem.0529 10.5055/jem.0621 10.1080/00223980.2022.2039891 4) The discussion section needs further work. Add relevant previous studies and compare their findings with your study results to show the study gaps and innovative points more clearly. 5) Implication of the study findings and conclusions also needs more convincing arguments related to their practical implications and highlighting the innovative points of the study for policymakers. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, Kindly find below few comments to be considered: 1- In the abstract, add clearly the aim of the study, methodology, and recommendations. 2- After the introduction, you have to add "Literature review". 3- Since your used Survey to emphasize the research hypotheses or questions. In your study i did not see clear research hypotheses or questions. Authors should add Literature review and at the end of the literature review you should generate research hypotheses or questions. Then in the results section you should show us how your results confirm or refute the hypotheses or questions of the study. 4- In the discussion section, you can laso show how the other studies support your results. 5- In the results section, you should also clarify statistically how you can enphasize the hypotheses or questions and which statistics support each one. 6- Usually the survey statistics should answer a research questions or hypotheses. I cannot see any of this relations. All ther best, ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295064.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2023 Author Response We have carefully worked through the thoughtful comments of the editorial and reviewer teams and have provided our response to these comments for your consideration below. 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 Thank you for the feedback and for signposting us to the relevant formatting guidance. We have now amended the manuscript and relevant files as per the PLOS ONE style templates. 2. 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. We have specified this information under the ‘Ethics’ heading found within the ‘Methods’ section of the manuscript. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. We apologise for the disparity in the information provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections. We have included a full financial disclosure in the manuscript which now correlates with the ‘Funding Information’ found within the editorial manager. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. We have provided a more detailed data availability statement in the editorial manager. Hopefully this is more helpful but please do let us know if you require further information. 5. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. Thank you for this guidance. We have contacted plosone@plos.org to request that this option is now removed. 6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. We have specified this information in full under the ‘Ethics’ heading, found within the ‘Methods’ section of 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? 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: Thank you for inviting me to review this comprehensive and interesting piece of work. Covid-19 has specifically devastated global well-being and all walks of life in 2020 and 2021. In this regard, this study has an essential and conducted critical study design. However, I want to add some sticky notes that will enhance the work's acceptability and quality and must be addressed before recommending it for publication. 1) A term used in abstract IMD, what is it? Be careful using abbreviations in the abstract and the main body of the paper before using their full form. Many thanks for identifying this error. We have corrected this, spelling out the abbreviated term in full. Furthermore, we have ensured the remainder of the abstract and main body of the paper has abbreviations spelled out in full before using their abbreviated terms. 2) Please elaborate on the rationale behind using the ethnic code and their selection. Why did authors make a separate code for non-white British, Pakistani heritage, and others? Why didn't they consider the other ethnicity separately? Is it a focused study on Pakistani heritage mothers? Thank you for this feedback. We have provided greater clarity behind the rationale for using these ethnic codes and why ethnicity was not considered separately in the manuscript. 3) Literature on stringent lockdown measures must also be added and compared with the UK government because the survey was conducted during this phase. In this regard, a couple of studies suggested. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05912 10.5055/jem.0529 10.5055/jem.0621 10.1080/00223980.2022.2039891 Thank you for your feedback and for the literature recommendations. Despite the Bradford population containing many mothers of Pakistani Heritage, we feel that the geographical and political setting of the research being limited to the UK government means that a comparative analysis of lockdown measures is perhaps not relevant to the findings of this paper at this time. However, we have included further references to literature exploring the scope and impact of the lockdown measures on this population in the UK. 4) The discussion section needs further work. Add relevant previous studies and compare their findings with your study results to show the study gaps and innovative points more clearly. Thank you for this feedback. We have hopefully addressed this point with further reflection upon the results and comparison to other study results, as recommended by both reviewers. 5) Implication of the study findings and conclusions also needs more convincing arguments related to their practical implications and highlighting the innovative points of the study for policymakers. We have also addressed this in the manuscript based on the recommendations. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, Kindly find below few comments to be considered: 1- In the abstract, add clearly the aim of the study, methodology, and recommendations. Thank you for this feedback. We have amended the abstract to clearly add the study, methodology and recommendations. 2- After the introduction, you have to add "Literature review". We have more clearly defined the literature review, with the inclusion of the ‘Literature Review’ heading within the introduction. 3- Since your used Survey to emphasize the research hypotheses or questions. In your study i did not see clear research hypotheses or questions. Authors should add Literature review and at the end of the literature review you should generate research hypotheses or questions. Then in the results section you should show us how your results confirm or refute the hypotheses or questions of the study. Thank you for the feedback. We have reworked the introduction to improve the structure and signposting of the introduction. We have also reworked sections of the introduction to more clearly explain the aim and research questions of the study. 4- In the discussion section, you can laso show how the other studies support your results. Thank you for this feedback. We have hopefully addressed this point with further reflection upon the results and comparison to other study results, as recommended by both reviewers. 5- In the results section, you should also clarify statistically how you can enphasize the hypotheses or questions and which statistics support each one. Thank you for your feedback, we have amended the results section headings to make this clearer. 6- Usually the survey statistics should answer a research questions or hypotheses. I cannot see any of this relations. Thank you for your feedback. Hopefully the amendments we have made along the lines of the feedback above have addressed this point to provide greater clarity regarding the research questions and how the research answers these questions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295064.r002
30 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Wajiha Haq, Editor PONE-D-23-05276R1The long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on financial insecurity in vulnerable families: findings from the Born in Bradford Covid-19 longitudinal study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reece, 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. ============================== Minor revision ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2023 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, Wajiha Haq, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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. ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: As I Recommended in the previous review, please add some stringency measures in other countries or regions and compare them with your findings, which have not been considered. The purpose behind suggesting such measures is to compare what others have done and how the UK government would have done it better or effectively. If they also do the same standard measures, what is the difference, and how would you say your findings are innovative or novel? There is no need to summarize the key findings in the discussion section. It would be a repetition of the summary with a conclusion section. Just mention this summary while concluding remarks. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295064.r003
Revision 2
1 Nov 2023 Author Response Thank you once again for your consideration of this manuscript. We have carefully worked through the thoughtful comments of the editorial and reviewer teams and have provided our response to these comments for your consideration in the attached 'Response to Reviewers' file. There were two points raised by Reviewer 1 and these have been addressed in the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295064.r004
15 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Wajiha Haq, Editor The long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on financial insecurity in vulnerable families: findings from the Born in Bradford Covid-19 longitudinal study. PONE-D-23-05276R2 Dear Dr. Reece, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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, Wajiha Haq, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295064.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Wajiha Haq, Editor PONE-D-23-05276R2 The long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on financial insecurity in vulnerable families: findings from the Born in Bradford Covid-19 longitudinal study. Dear Dr. Reece: I'm 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 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. 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. Wajiha Haq Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295064.r006

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 .