Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 12, 2019
Decision Letter - Russell Kabir, Editor

PONE-D-19-16700

Breastfeeding support through wet nursing during nutritional emergency in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh: a cross sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rifat,

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 14 August 2019. 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:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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,

Russell Kabir, PhD

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

1. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested and validated.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) sample size justification and a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

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 include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 very interesting research work, written concisely.

Still, a few points are raised for better understanding of the reader.

Use of "in" twice in the title

Use of cross sectional study in the short title

Language grammar and punctuations

Use of keywords which are part of the title

The second sentence in the objective "The ultimate....." may be avoided or inserted in the conclusions

An explanation of prevalence of wet nursing in the refugee camp may be narrated before objectives

A sample size of 24. How can it be sufficient for such a quantitative analysis. Justify using literature and theories.

Association from linear regression requires an explanation.

mention significance at measures of association

Reviewer #2: table 1: it would be better if "n" should be mentioned

Table 2 : it would be better if 95% CI is mentioned

in page no. 5 (Discussion), it is mentioned that wet nurses having 12-24'm' baby were able to breast fed for longer period. it would be better if it could be written as 'months' otherwise leading to confusion of 'meter' distance.

Table 3: 2nd line : age (m) of youngest 'children' could be "child'

Reviewer #3: The study is innovative and relevant especially with current refugee situations globally.

There are a few typographical errors and sentence construction should be reviewed generally.

Further clarification is needed on how a sample size of 24 was gotten.

The authors should review some more literature to make their discussion more engaging.Has wet nursing been done elsewhere?what were the outcomes of such similar studies?

Regarding the nutritional status of the on infant,I am not sure what to make of the information.Was this an attempt to provide information about the prevalence of malnutrition among the infants in that refugee camp or to compare the nutritional status of the infants being wet nursed to those without?

All the 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: Yes: Dr. Asharaf Abdul Salam

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bhabani Prasad Acharya

Reviewer #3: 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

Response to editor’s comments:

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have addressed each of your points below:

1. The revised manuscript has been prepared as PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

2. Questionnaire (both in English and Bengali version) used in this study has been provided as “Supporting Information”.

3. Copyediting of manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar has been accomplished with the help of professional English editors from Editage (www.editage.com). Thanks for your guidance in this regard.

4. A copy of the manuscript showing the changes by highlighting them has been uploaded as a “Supporting Information” file. The edited manuscript has been provided as “Manuscript”.

5. Methods section has been revised accordingly. The demographic and geographic perspective has been addressed. Data collection and data analysis methods have been elaborated for better understanding. Justification of small sample size has been provided. How the questionnaire was pre-tested and validated has been addressed.

6. Data availability statement has been revised and “Minimal Underlying Dataset” has been provided.

Response to the comments from Reviewer-1:

Thank you very much for appreciating our work. We highly care your comments thus provided the best effort to address the issues as following:

1. The title has been revised by professional English editor and has been changed to “Breastfeeding support through wet nursing during nutritional emergencies: a cross sectional study from Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh”.

2. The short title has also been revised and has been changed to “Breastfeeding support through wet nursing”.

3. Considering the comment from you as well as academic editor we have made the manuscript revise by professional English editing experts.

4. There are very few existing literatures regarding wet nursing in refugee context. However, we have focused few examples of wet nursing (such as in Ellembelle Nzema, Ghana and in Turkey) in the discussion section correlating to our findings. In the revised introduction section we mainly focused on the current subject context.

5. Justification of small sample size has been provided in Methods section as well as in Discussion section showing the evidence of available literature.

6. Associations from linear regression have been explained in Discussion section showing other evidences from literature.

7. Significance level (P) at measures of association has been mentioned.

Response to the comments from Reviewer-2:

Thanks for your valuable comments which helped us to improve the manuscript quality. We have revised the manuscript as per your comments as following:

1. We have carefully revised the tables, statistical units, and units of measurements in the appropriate places.

2. In table 1, “n” has been mentioned. 95% CI has been mentioned in Table 3. To mention the age, the term “month” has been used instead of “m”.

3. In tables and figures, terminologies and grammatical issues have been corrected accordingly.

Response to the comments from Reviewer-3:

We are glad to hear the appreciation of our work from you. Thank for adding value to our work through your valuable comments. However, this is how we considered your comments and revised the manuscript:

1. The manuscript has been edited by professional English editors.

2. Justification of small sample size has been discussed in methodology and discussion section which are highlighted.

3. Some recent evidence of wet nursing has been cited in discussion section. The discussion section has been revised with more evidences from literature.

4. Under-nutrition prevalence in the camp was provided to portray the aggravating factors in the camps. However, some part of this discussion has been replaced to the methodology section (study setting) for better understanding.

We highly appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing from you regarding the revised manuscript. Thank you from our team.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Russell Kabir, Editor

Breastfeeding support through wet nursing during nutritional emergency: A cross sectional study from Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh

PONE-D-19-16700R1

Dear Dr. Rifat,

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,

Russell Kabir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Russell Kabir, Editor

PONE-D-19-16700R1

Breastfeeding support through wet nursing during nutritional emergency: A cross sectional study from Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh

Dear Dr. Rifat:

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. Russell Kabir

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 .