Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 15, 2020
Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor

PONE-D-20-18273

Utilization of Companionship during delivery and associated factors among women who gave birth at Arbaminch town public health facilities, southern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alemu,

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.

SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: Two experts in the field reviewed your manuscript. We thank them for their time and efforts. Although some interest was found in your study, several major concerns overshadowed this enthusiasm. These concerns include: the article structure needs significant work with emphasis on stating the novelty of this study; questions about delivery route, how women perceived that they were allowed to have a birth companion, and the exclusion criteria; the data presentation needs to be stronger; and the discussion and conclusion need to better reflect the findings. All of the reviewers' comments must be addressed in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 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,

Frank T. Spradley

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 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.  If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

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.Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

[Arba Minch University as a requirement for postgraduate studies supports this research

financially.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [no]

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: While it is interesting to see the variables which are correlated with birth companionship, this piece could be made stronger with qualitative findings particularly since the paper reports that many women did not perceive that they were allowed to have a birth companion.

Reviewer #2: all comment inserted in manuscript and attached. some comments are including:

article structure is weak.structure paragraph is incorrect. major revision is needed.

background is low. what is the importance ,necessary,gap and research question?

What delivery type with normal vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery?

exclusion criteria is not completed.

please explain more about validity and reliability of questionnaire.

what is ethical code?

the table has ambiguity. some lines in table have to delete to clarify it.

discussion is weak and underdeveloped and do not cover all finding such as associated factors.

**********

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: No

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: PONE-D-20-18273_reviewer-1.pdf
Revision 1

Author’s Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewer's and Editors Reports

Title: Utilization of Companionship during delivery and associated factors among women who gave birth at Arba Minch town public health facilities, southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Corresponding author: Biresaw Wassihun /bireswas@gmail.com

Authors

1. Kassaw Beyene

2. Gebresilasea Gendisha

3. Biresaw Wassihun

Manscurpuit number: PONE-D-20-18273

Journal: Plos one

Article type: Research article

Point by point response to Reviewers and Editors

First of all, the authors would like to thank Plos one Journal editors and the respective reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and providing the necessary comments to be corrected. As per the comments given, we have made corrections point by point to comment. The authors tried to answer all the issues raised by editorial team and reviewers.

Point by point response to Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.""

Response: Thank you very much we had apply journal requirement

2. 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. If the original language is written in, non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible

Response: ok we will provide All Questioners as additional information upon summation

3. 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

Response: no restriction on data we can attach as supplementary files.

4. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire before testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

Response: Thank you very much we had validated all tool using Cronbach alpha and we had discussed in detail in the Methods section of the manuscript

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

[Arba Minch University as a requirement for postgraduate studies supports this research

financially.] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Response: Thank you very much we had removed it

Point by point response to Reviewers

Question 1: background is low what is the importance, necessary, gap, and research question.

The structure paragraph is incorrect. Article structure is weak.

Response 1: We would like to say thank you very much for your invaluable comments and suggestions. We considered and modified and rewrote again background section based on your constructive issues, coherence, and comprehensibility of the manuscript

Question 2: What delivery type with normal vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery?

Response 2: those mothers who have a normal vaginal delivery

Question 3. exclusion criteria are not completed

Response 3: We amend it and corrected it accordingly. Those women who are seriously ill and unable to communicate during the data collection period were excluded

Question 4. please explain more about validity and reliability of questionnaire

Response 4: We amend it and corrected it accordingly. After pre-testing the questionnaire, Cronbatch’s Alpha was calculated by using SPSS window version 25.0 to test internal consistency (reliability) of the item and Cronbatch’s Alpha greater than 0.7 was considered as reliable. Data were collected by trained midwives and nurses. During data collection regular supervision was done by the supervisors

Question 5. please edit your table? there are a ambitious table with lot of rows

Response 5: It was corrected according to your suggestion

Question 6. some lines in table have to delete to clarify it.

Response 6. It was corrected accordingly

Question 7. discussion is weak and underdeveloped and do not cover all finding such as associated factors.

Response 7. In discussion section, correction was made accordingly based on both reviewers comment and suggestion

Question 8. the paragraph structure is incorrect.

Response 8. correction was made according to you nice comment and suggestion

Question 9. Edite your words example South Africa (??)

Response 9. Words correction was made accordingly based on both reviewers comment and suggestion

Question 10. The references are incomplete

Response 10: Correction was made thanks in-depth, for your nice comment

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviwers biresaw.docx
Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor

PONE-D-20-18273R1

Utilization of Companionship during delivery and associated factors among women who gave birth at Arbaminch town public health facilities, southern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alemu,

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.

SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: There is still a major concern that the manuscript was not properly copyedited before resubmission. The authors must hire someone to proof their manuscript before resubmission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 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,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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)

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: No

**********

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: I would recommend a round of intensive copy-editing to improve the readibility of the paper. This was a comment made in the previous round of feedback and this challenge persists.

**********

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.

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: 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.

Revision 2

Author’s Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewer's and Editors Reports

Title: Utilization of Companionship during delivery and associated factors among women who gave birth at Arba Minch town public health facilities, southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Corresponding author: Biresaw Wassihun /bireswas@gmail.com

Authors

1. Kassaw Beyene

2. Gebresilasea Gendisha Ukke

3. Biresaw Wassihun

Manscurpuit number: PONE-D-20-18273

Journal: Plos one

Article type: Research article

Point by point response to Reviewers and Editors

First of all, the authors would like to thank Plos one Journal editors and the respective reviewers for reviewing our manuscript and providing the necessary comments to be corrected. As per the comments given, we have made corrections point by point to comment. The authors tried to answer all the issues raised by editorial team and reviewers.

Point by point response to Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.""

Response: Thank you very much we had apply journal requirement

2. 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)

Response: ok we will provide

Point by point response to Reviewers

Question 1. Reviewer #1: I would recommend a round of intensive copy-editing to improve the readibility of the paper. This was a comment made in the previous round of feedback and this challenge persists

Response: thank you for your nice comment. All of the comments was edited

Question 2. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire before testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

Response: Thank you very much we had validated all tool using Cronbach alpha . Before actual data collection occurred two-day training was provided for data collectors and the supervisor about techniques of data collection and briefed on each question included in the data collection tool. The pretest was done on 5% (21) of mothers receiving care in a health center that was not included in the study before the actual study period. After pre-testing the questionnaire, Cronbach's Alpha was calculated by using SPSS window version 25.0 to test internal consistency (reliability) of the item, and Cronbach's Alpha greater than 0.7 was considered as reliable. Data were collected by trained midwives and nurses. During data collection, regular supervision was done by the supervisors

Question 3: background is low what is the importance, necessary, gap, and research question.

The structure paragraph is incorrect. Article structure is weak.

Response : We would like to say thank you very much for your invaluable comments and suggestions. We considered and modified and rewrote again background section based on your constructive issues, coherence, and comprehensibility of the manuscript

Question 5: What delivery type with normal vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery?

Response : those mothers who have a normal vaginal delivery

Question 6. exclusion criteria are not completed

Response : We amend it and corrected it accordingly. Those women who are seriously ill and unable to communicate during the data collection period were excluded

Question 7. please edit your table? there are a ambitious table with lot of rows

Response : It was corrected according to your suggestion

Question 8. some lines in table have to delete to clarify it.

Response . It was corrected accordingly

Question 9. discussion is weak and underdeveloped and do not cover all finding such as associated factors.

Response . In discussion section, correction was made accordingly based on both reviewers comment and suggestion

Question 10. Edite your words example South Africa (??)

Response 9. Words correction was made accordingly based on both reviewers comment and suggestion

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviwers biresaw.docx
Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor

Utilization of Companionship during delivery and associated factors among women who gave birth at Arbaminch town public health facilities, southern Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-18273R2

Dear Dr. Alemu,

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,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor

PONE-D-20-18273R2

Utilization of Companionship during delivery and associated factors among women who gave birth at Arba Minch town public health facilities, southern Ethiopia  

Dear Dr. Alemu:

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. Frank T. Spradley

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 .