Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 4, 2020
Decision Letter - Holly Seale, Editor

PONE-D-20-06204

Factors Influencing Vaccination Coverage among Children Age 12–23 Months in Afghanistan: Further Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. university,

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 13 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Holly Seale

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

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere:

"This study was conducted during the DHS fellowship program and one of the responsibility of fellows are to to publish their studies in a peer review journal. The DHS program also shared the conducted studies in its website and also after publication in a peer review journal they will share the link of paper in the DHS website."

Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published.

If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Ahmad Khalid Aalemi.

6. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Comments to authors

Title: Factors Influencing Vaccination Coverage among Children Age 12–23 Months in 3 Afghanistan: Further Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Comment: My suggestion to remove the word further

Abstract

Comment: In the study, half of the subjects were boys (51%), almost half were born at home 36 (48%), and about three-fourths were residents of rural areas (76%)

Please revise the above sentence to either include narrate or %, but not both IE half and then 51% this the same way of expressing.

Line 37-43 add RRR appropriately

Introduction

Comments: Line 89 health indicators 2015 used, could you use update one!

Line 96-119, all these review literatures could be part of the discussion rather in the introduction

Lines 114-116, stated the study objective clearly, however, line 119-129 stated other objectives which is a bit confusing and stated like protocol rather than study write up. Revise accordingly.

Methods

Comments: Line 134 stated the survey was conducted in 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Any justification of implemented in these provinces?

34 provinces representation of how many provinces at national level. Explain?

Results

Comments:

Could you also analyze the vaccination coverage based on the card and maternal recall?

In all tables limit the % into at least one digit avoid over digital 2.3456

Discussions

General comments:

Haemophilus influenzae change to italic

Comments:

Sentence in line 256 no reference

Provide links and experiences with other countries in the key findings, especially the discussion in lines 269, 277 and 308

Line 267-268 provide more in-depth of plausible causes not limited to one cause

Line 283-284 this is a repetition sentence to be avoided

Line 319 identifies the key finding and further discuss around it

Conclusion

Comments: to be revised and include the key findings and messages

Study limitation

Provide possible study limitation

**********

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: Salah Al Awaidy

[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.

Revision 1

Dear Prof. Holly Seale

I would like to thank you for giving us a chance to revise our manuscript and thanks to reviewers for their valuable comments.

Please find our detailed answers under each comment. We have specified the paragraph where the revisions have been mad and the revision can be seen as track changes in the manuscript.

Response to comments

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 athttps://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

Answer: Dear Editor, thanks for providing the link. We have read it carefully and revised our manuscript according to the guildline.

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

Answer: We have included all the tables in the manuscript and removed individual files from the system.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere:

"This study was conducted during the DHS fellowship program and one of the responsibility of fellows are to to publish their studies in a peer review journal. The DHS program also shared the conducted studies in its website and also after publication in a peer review journal they will share the link of paper in the DHS website."

Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

Answer: Dear Editor, as I explained this study was conducted under the guidance of DHS experts to increase the capacity of secondary analysis in developing countries. This study is neither published in any journal nor peer reviewed, just as a result of capacity building program they shared the study as a working paper in their website. There are examples of such papers published in PLOS One (these papers also conducted in the same program but different year.

1- Mya KS, Kyaw AT, Tun T. Feeding practices and nutritional status of children age 6-23 months in Myanmar: A secondary analysis of the 2015-16 Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0209044. Published 2019 Jan 2. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209044

2- Chhea C, Ir P, Sopheab H. Low birth weight of institutional births in Cambodia: Analysis of the Demographic and Health Surveys 2010-2014. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0207021. Published 2018 Nov 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207021

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Answer: Dear Editor, thanks for your question. The data is publically available in the DHS website. I revised the data availability statement as follow.

The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data are publicly available data that can be downloaded from the DHS Program’s website (URL: https://www.dhsprogram.com/). The specific data set used by the authors was the 2015 Afghanistan DHS survey.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Ahmad Khalid Aalemi.

Answer: We are amended the submission data and included author Ahmad Khalid

Aalemi

6. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Answer: Thanks for your comment; we moved the ethics statement to the methods section.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Answer: We have updated the Figure 3 label. Now all of the figures are cited in the text.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Answer: Thanks for comments; we added a caption for each figure in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: Comments to authors

Dear Salah Al Awaidy thanks for your valuable comments. We tried to consider all of your comments hope it will be acceptable for you.

Title: Factors Influencing Vaccination Coverage among Children Age 12–23 Months in 3 Afghanistan: Further Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Comment: My suggestion to remove the word further

Answer: Dear Sir, we included further because this is a secondary analysis of DHS data. As per your suggestion we removed the further from the title.

Abstract

Comment: In the study, half of the subjects were boys (51%), almost half were born at home 36 (48%), and about three-fourths were residents of rural areas (76%)

Please revise the above sentence to either include narrate or %, but not both IE half and then 51% this the same way of expressing.

Line 37-43 add RRR appropriately

Answer: Dear Sir, we revised the whole result part of the abstract based on your recommendation.

Introduction

Comments: Line 89 health indicators 2015 used, could you use update one!

Answer: Thanks for comment; this is the latest available figure about Afghanistan. As per your comment we searched literature but could not find any update data.

Line 96-119, all these review literatures could be part of the discussion rather in the introduction

Answer: Thank you for your comment; we moved the recommended part to discussion

Lines 114-116, stated the study objective clearly, however, line 119-129 stated other objectives which is a bit confusing and stated like protocol rather than study write up. Revise accordingly.

Answer: We removed the line 119-129 from the manuscript and revised the objective of the study.

Methods

Comments: Line 134 stated the survey was conducted in 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Any justification of implemented in these provinces?

34 provinces representation of how many provinces at national level. Explain?

Answer: Dear Sir, this is the total number of provinces in Afghanistan. It means the data were collected from all provinces of Afghanistan. We revised the 34 provinces to all provinces.

Results

Comments:

Could you also analyze the vaccination coverage based on the card and maternal recall?

Answer: Thanks for your comment; unfortunately we cannot analysis separately based on card and maternal recall because we have one variable about each vaccine. There is no separate variable in the data set for each of them.

In all tables limit the % into at least one digit avoid over digital 2.3456

Answer: Thanks for comments. Sorry for the mistake. Now the tables’ contents are updated.

Discussions

General comments:

Haemophilus influenzae change to italic

Answer: Thanks Sir, we changed the Haemophilus influenza to italic

Comments:

Sentence in line 256 no reference

Answer: The reference is added to that sentence.

Provide links and experiences with other countries in the key findings, especially the discussion in lines 269, 277 and 308

Answer: Thanks for your valuable comments we added the links to show other countries also found similar findings as per your comments in each paragraph.

Line 267-268 provide more in-depth of plausible causes not limited to one cause

Answer: Dear Sir, as you know this is a cross sectional study; only we can find association which does not mean causation. In this paragraph we tried to link some evidence from literature that security might be a reason for lower coverage in Afghanistan. However there are many factors that have influence in the low coverage of vaccination in Afghanistan but till now it is not fully understood.

Line 283-284 this is a repetition sentence to be avoided

Answer: The sentence is removed from manuscript.

Line 319 identifies the key finding and further discuss around it

Answer: This is answered under conclusion comments

Conclusion

Comments: to be revised and include the key findings and messages

Answer: Thanks for comments; we revised the key finding of our study in the conclusion. Regarding our message it is stated in the 379-384 in the manuscript with track changes.

Study limitation

Provide possible study limitation

Answer: Thanks Sir, we added strength and limitation for our study at the end of discussion part.

Best Regards,

Dr. Ahmad Khalid Aalemi

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Holly Seale, Editor

Factors influencing vaccination coverage among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan: Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

PONE-D-20-06204R1

Dear Dr. Aalemi,

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,

Holly Seale

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Holly Seale, Editor

PONE-D-20-06204R1

Factors influencing vaccination coverage among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan: Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Dear Dr. Aalemi:

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 plosone@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. Holly Seale

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 .