PWAT-D-22-00012

Jumping up the sanitation ladder in rural Cambodia: the role of remittances and peer-to-peer pressure in adopting high-quality latrines.

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. Zuin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Water. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Water'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 apologize for the delay in the evaluation of your manuscript. Due to a current unavailability of the handling editor, I am issuing this editorial decision based on the reviewer reports below. Please also refer to the comments in the annotated manuscript provided, in addition to the feedback at the bottom of this email. When your manuscript is resubmitted, its suitability for publication will be reassessed by a member of our editorial board. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 2022 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 water@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pwat/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Debora Walker

Executive Editor

PLOS Water

Journal Requirements:

1. Please upload an English language copy of the survey questions used in the study as a supplemental file.

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Please provide a/amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

5. We noticed that you used “data not shown” in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

6. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format and removed from the manuscript file.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/water/s/figures  

https://journals.plos.org/water/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 

7. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 

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. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: No

**********

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

PLOS Water 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: To the authors and review team,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper.

In my review, I’ve summarised what I think are the strengths of the paper, one major concern I have (which I think can be addressed) and some areas for possible improvement: arranged according to the line of text they are associated with.

Overall, I find your choice of research topic extremely fascinating: the influence of migration on sanitation uptake is important, understudied and has critical lessons for the sanitation sector. I think this paper should be published, albeit with some adjustments.

It was great to see you include some of the risks associated with peer pressure in sanitation interventions; that is, the potential for shame and fear which is disproportionately borne by those who are poor or disadvantaged in other ways.

Your discussion section is excellent, with good links made between your findings and the existing literature. The conclusion has some clear recommendations which are great to see and again, an important contribution.

My main concern with the paper is something that is most directly exemplified in Line 605:

This paper analysed the combination of factors

606 that are most relevant for rural households to invest in high-quality latrines in 7 villages located in

Whilst you write that the ‘most relevant’ factors have been analysed, the method and presentation of results does not suggest how you ascertained this. That is, you’ve listed the factors mentioned by participants, but there is no indication of how many said these things, or whether these were the most important factors in their decisions. A general limitation of the paper is that it is unclear whether the factors/quotes mentioned are common to just one respondent or many and whilst it is clear that a quantitative analysis is inappropriate, the qualitative findings need to be contextualised more.

Some areas for possible improvement are:

Line 54-56:

Further,

55 in contrast to most other developing countries with similar GDP, where households transitioned

56 from open defecation to dry pits, rural Cambodians transitioned to owning a pour flush toilet,

Consider rephrasing so that it doesn’t sound like all developing country residents transitioned to dry pits and all rural Cambodians transitioned to pour flush toilets (Neither of these statement are true – as you describe in line 185, dry latrines are one of the toilet options). Regardless, this statement needs a reference to support it.

Line 81:

81 The approach is based on proven theories and models (9), as well

Consider rephrasing ‘proven’ to something like ‘supported’ or ‘demonstrated’; ‘proven’ seems to be overly conclusive.

Line 90:

Consider including a reference to the extensive CLTS literature that exists.

Line 126:

126 communities in proximity to urban centers and factories. This study contributes to the thin peer

127 reviewed literature exploring the multi-scalar factors influencing sanitation adoption with a

128 particular focus on financial and social remittances, as well as aspirations to modernity and peer

129 pressures.

Consider explaining in more detail what exactly about the literature is ‘thin’. There are several studies that look at the barriers and enablers (i.e. factors influencing) the uptake of safe sanitation so a claim that this is thin doesn’t make sense. However, if there is an aspect of that literature that is thin, then make that clearer. I.e. it seems like you might be implying that there is not a lot of literature about the impact of modernity and social pressure on sanitation uptake; in which case, make that explicit because it highlights the important contribution your study is making (without discounting the research that has come before it!)

Line 193:

193 Once data collection was completed in each village, the local researcher prepared a village report,

194 and this report would be discussed at length with the authors. In total, 78 hours of material were

195 recorded, translated, and transcribed. Data analysis was performed using NVIVO 12 Pro by the

196 authors.

It’s unclear here whether the data for this report came from analysis of the transcripts using NVivo or analysis of the village reports using NVivo. Consider make this clearer.

Line 219:

219 given that households in Cambodia practice anal cleaning using water, no households with a latrine

220 had a dry pit; all latrines that existed were pour flush, or “villa” latrines as they are called in the local

221 context.

This contradicts what is written in Line 185 where one of the toilet options is a dry latrine. Make sure this is consistent throughout the paper.

Line 338:

338 Interviews suggest that both NGOs and local leaders prioritized coverage increase over investments

Consider making it more explicit which interviews you’re referring to: the ones with NGO staff, village leaders or the villagers themselves?

Line 353 onwards:

There are several italicised quotes of what participants have said but these are not attributed to any particular participant. It would be better to have some kind of attribution e.g. male and female residents from villages x, y and z said ‘blah blah blah’.

In the discussion, there are two sections:

485 Social remittances and the role of aspirations

532 The role of peer-to-peer pressure in enabling widespread adoptions

There seems to be a bit of cross-over of findings in these two sections: that is, the children who come home influence their parents to build better toilets and this is used as an example in both sections although it seems that fits best in the first section (at line 581, the example given seems to fit better in the previous section). Consider using one or two very clear examples in each section to demonstrate the excellent points you are making, and ensure that the examples used for each section are distinct.

Finally, a general stylistic point is to reconsider language that tells the reader what to think about the research, for example: ‘interestingly’ or ‘not surprisingly’. Some readers prefer to draw their own conclusions. If the finding is not surprising, instead you could say that it aligns with the existing research. Please take this as a very general suggestion though: not everyone writes in the same style and that is a good thing!

Again, thank you for inviting me to review this paper and all the best for the publication process.

Kind regards,

Naomi Francis.

Reviewer #2: Well done on such a useful and important study! The insights in this paper are very valuable and offer a unique lens. I think some small changes could add to the clarity of the paper and describe the rigour that was applied to the analysis. In particular I recommend reading a few high quality qualitative studies (I have recommend a few below) to see how they have structured their findings and their theoretical framing. This will bring the paper up to a higher academic level.

I have highlighted a few of the bigger aspects here and have provided an annotated pdf.

Best of luck in the next revision and again - well done!

1. The abstract meanders a bit and could be strengthened to focus on the main findings (overlapping NGO interventions, priority for villa latrines and increased coverage post-intervention) and the key discussion poi

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: N Francis review of PWAT-D-22-00012.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PWAT-D-22-00012-Review.pdf

PWAT-D-22-00012R1

Jumping up the sanitation ladder in rural Cambodia: the role of remittances and peer-to-peer pressure in adopting high-quality latrines.

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. Zuin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Water. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Water'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.

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below.

Although reviewer #2 is satisfied with the revisions you made to your manuscript, reviewer #1 still has an outstanding concern that they would like to see addressed. Please see reviewer #1's comments below.

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 12 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 water@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pwat/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve Zimmerman, PhD

PLOS Staff Editor

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 

3. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figure 1: Please confirm (a) that you are the photographer; or (b) provide written permission from the photographer to publish the photo(s) under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

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. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS Water 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

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: To the authors and review team,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper again.

Unfortunately, my main concern with the paper was misunderstood by the authorship team. I have copied the concern again below:

My main concern with the paper is something that is most directly exemplified in Line 605:

This paper analysed the combination of factors

606 that are most relevant for rural households to invest in high-quality latrines in 7 villages located in

Whilst you write that the ‘most relevant’ factors have been analysed, the method and presentation of results does not suggest how you ascertained this. That is, you’ve listed the factors mentioned by participants, but there is no indication of how many said these things, or whether these were the most important factors in their decisions. A general limitation of the paper is that it is unclear whether the factors/quotes mentioned are common to just one respondent or many and whilst it is clear that a quantitative analysis is inappropriate, the qualitative findings need to be contextualised more.

It seems that the authorship team interpreted my comment to mean that there was an issue with the word ‘factor’ (and perhaps this is because Reviewer #2 raised an issue with the word ‘factor’). This is not an issue in my perspective: rather, that it is unclear how this study ascertained what the ‘most relevant’ factors were. Listing factors that ‘were shared with the interviewers by one or more respondents’ is not a rigorous method for ascertaining the ‘most relevant’ factors, so I would suggest that either 1) the findings be represented as a collection of factors mentioned by the participants (which is fine for a piece of formative research), and don’t mention anything about ‘most relevant’ factors anywhere or 2) explain what method was adopted for ascertaining what the ‘most relevant’ factors were. Given that you have said ‘Our goal is not to rank these factors in order of importance, but rather 143 discuss qualitatively their relevance in the particular context of the villages in this study’, then option 1 is more appropriate in my opinion.

It is great to see you have framed the factors with reference to literature (as reviewer #2 suggested) but this needs to be more clearly referenced in your analysis and results. In line 67, you mention Diagram 1 which depicts a model of factors, but you don’t explain where this came from, why you chose this model and why you have chosen only to focus on the factors highlighted in red. If you can make these changes, it will greatly increase the academic rigour of your work and helps to address the concern I have raised above.

Thank you for considering my other suggestions: I support the changes you’ve made as a result.

There are still a few grammar and spelling mistakes that need to be corrected e.g. Line 150 (second instead of section).

Despite the concerns described here, I think the paper is an important contribution to CLTS literature and look forward to seeing the next stage of its publication.

Reviewer #2: (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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jess MacArthur

**********

[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.

Jumping up the sanitation ladder in rural Cambodia: the role of remittances and peer-to-peer pressure in adopting high-quality latrines.

PWAT-D-22-00012R2

Dear Dr. Zuin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Jumping up the sanitation ladder in rural Cambodia: the role of remittances and peer-to-peer pressure in adopting high-quality latrines.' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Water.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 water@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Water.

Best regards,

Sara Marks

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

***********************************************************

Please note: In your acknowledgements there seems to be a mix-up in the reviewers' names. It is perhaps better to thank the Reviewers generally, but not by name specifically.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn 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: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 Water 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: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your kind words about the review - but I believe they are actually directed at the other reviewer on this work (Reviewer 1) :)

It is lovely to see that reviews have been helpful in the development of this paper.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Naomi Francis

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jess MacArthur

**********