Comments to the Author
- Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’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: Partly
- Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: N/A
- 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
- Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS Global Public Health 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
- 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 the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, it makes an important contribution to understanding climate and health policy in Argentina, but several issues should be addressed before it is suitable for publication:
The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, analyzing climate and health policy in Argentina through stakeholder perspectives.
The qualitative design (interviews, document analysis, stakeholder workshop) is appropriate for the research question.
Valuable insights are provided on governance, financing, technical networks, federalism, and awareness gaps, with lessons for Latin America more broadly.
Inconsistencies in sample reporting: text mentions both 31 interviews and 26 interviews with 31 participants. This must be clarified and reconciled with Table 1.
The analysis section requires more detail on how coding disagreements were resolved and how workshop data were integrated.
The rationale for merging WHO framework dimensions should be better explained to ensure analytical nuance is not lost.
The Data Availability Statement does not comply with PLOS requirements. Data are not publicly available and no concrete mechanism for controlled access is provided. At minimum, de-identified excerpts or a codebook should be shared.
Ethics approvals are described but approval identifiers/protocol numbers should be included for transparency.
The manuscript is intelligible and written in standard English but contains issues that should be corrected:
Abstract is too long and must be shortened to ~250–300 words.
“Intersectionality” should be corrected to “intersectorality.”
“Precarized personnel” should be rephrased as “temporary personnel with insecure contracts.”
“Professionals and non-professionals” should be replaced with clearer wording (e.g., “clinical and support staff”).
Redundancy around “technical teams” and “federalism” should be reduced.
References require major correction:
Multiple broken Zotero placeholders are present.
Several entries are incomplete or missing DOIs/URLs.
Reference formatting must be standardized to PLOS style.
Discussion section:
Some statements overgeneralize from interviewee quotes (e.g., physicians not sensitized); these should be framed more cautiously.
Financing section should explore in more depth why mitigation dominates international funding.
References to political events (2024–2025) should be time-stamped as “at the time of data collection” to avoid rapid obsolescence.
Overall, the study is methodologically appropriate and conclusions are mostly supported by the data.
Revisions are necessary to ensure methodological clarity, compliance with data availability policy, correction of references, and refinement of language before publication.
- 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
[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.]
Figure Resubmissions:
While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.
After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.