PWAT-D-24-00181

Investigating the suitability of dichotomous responses for the Water Insecurity Experience (WISE) Scales using nationally representative data from 39 countries

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. Miller,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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,

Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

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 

2. 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.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):

Both the reviewers agree that the manuscript may be acceptable pending minor revisions. I, especially, agree with the comments from Reviewer 2 regarding the methods. I would suggest including this information as a supplementary information or annex to help non-experts better understand the methodology and the results. Otherwise, the study is well-written and the methods are appropriate.

[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: 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 (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: Yes

**********

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: Manuscript ID: PWAT-D-24-00181

Manuscript Title: Investigating the suitability of dichotomous responses for the Water Insecurity Experience (WISE) Scales using nationally representative data from 39 countries

General Remarks:

The manuscript title is precise, well-worded, and effectively captures the study’s focus. Overall, the abstract and manuscript are well-written and easy to understand. Given the importance and invaluable insights provided for global monitoring of water insecurity experiences, I strongly suggest that the main recommendations be highlighted through a figure or table (like a fact sheet) for easy reference for decision-makers. This should outline under which life, time, and budgetary conditions the polytomous or dichotomous route is advised based on this study. For instance, construct a pictorial fact sheet to capture the following (including other recommendations):

1. Program Evaluation: Polytomous response options that capture the frequency of experiences.

2. Manifestation of Water Insecurity: The 12-item WISE scales with dichotomous responses to show how water

insecurity can manifest and disrupt life.

3. Limited Time and Resources: Viable alternatives include abbreviated versions of the scales (WISE-4 and WISE-

12 with dichotomous responses). Instructions must clarify that any occurrence should be considered an

affirmation.

or (example 2)

Condition/Activities/Objective WISE Scale Routes Justification

Program Evaluation Polytomous response option Captures the frequency of experiences

The other minor corrections are highlighted below:

Abstract

Line 49: provide the full meaning of ‘ROC’

Discussion

Lines 578/579: insert ‘how’ before ‘many’ to read ‘…depending on how many response options…’

Reviewer #2: Comments

The research objective and the related research questions are interesting and clear. The manuscript could be published after minor revisions, but before that, it is relevant to add the description of the methodology used in this work.

Line 80, intro. When explaining the HWISE and the IWISE, I would suggest making clear that every item is referred to the past 4 years. This is mentioned in the example but not in the explanation of the scales. I would suggest adding this info before the example

Line 97-99, intro. I would suggest adding reference/s to this statement if available. This would make the need of this work even more robust

Line 121-123. I would suggest adding reference/s to this statement if available. This would make the need of this work even more robust

Line 192. The “recall period” needs to be made explicit as it was done in line 197.

Line 195. I would suggest replacing “elsewhere” with a direct link to the references 6, 29. E.g., “ …which have been detailed in 6, 29.”.

Line 247: in general the statistical analysis is well reported and covers how the authors conducted the study. How the methodology has been applied is clearly stated.

However, the description of the methodology itself used is currently missing. Given the critical relevance of the methodology at the base of this work, it would be relevant and valuable to add in dedicated session/s a summary of its description.

The addition should cover:

i) an explanation/description of the general structure of ROC (thus AUC as well), how it should be interpreted, the info that allows to collect and how,

ii) a description of the criteria used for selecting the most appropriate cut-offs, and

iii) a description of the sensitivity analysis applied

How the weight and the adjustment per country were assigned/done need to be explained as well.

The descriptive summary of the methodology could be placed in the main text if space in the manuscript allows or in the supplementary material if it doesn’t.

The description of the methodology applied would offer a more comprehensive and transparent explanation of what was done. Furthermore, it provides the readers with a better understanding of the results.

Line 345: Given the results in Table S2, it might be needed to edit 52% in 50%.

**********

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.

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:  Professor Grace OLUWASANYA

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Water Review Assignment_Submitted Comments_07 Mar 2025.pdf

Investigating the suitability of dichotomous responses for the Water Insecurity Experience (WISE) Scales using nationally representative data from 39 countries

PWAT-D-24-00181R1

Dear Mr. Miller,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Investigating the suitability of dichotomous responses for the Water Insecurity Experience (WISE) Scales using nationally representative data from 39 countries' 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,

Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments. The manuscript has improved.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):