Consumption of alcohol and binge drinking among pregnant women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Prevalence and determinant factors

Mezinew Sintayehu Bitew; Maereg Fekade Zewde; Muluken Wubetu; Addisu Alehegn Alemu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243784

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 2, 2020
19 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Yukiko Washio, Editor PONE-D-20-19931 Consumption of Alcohol and Binge Drinking among Pregnant Women in Health Institutions, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Prevalence and Determinant factors PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bitew, 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 Oct 03 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, Yukiko Washio, Ph.D. 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. During our internal evaluation we noted that participants provided verbal consent, did the ethics committees/IRBs approve this consent procedure? Please explain: i) Why was written consent not obtained? ii) How did you record/document participant consent? In the methods section it is stated that “Pregnant women, age greater than and equal to 18, in all trimesters attending the eleven kolfe Keranio sub-city health centers during the study period were included”. In the ethics statement it is stated that “written informed consent was also got from their parents for participants under 18 years old”. These statements appear to be contradictory. Please confirm whether your study included any participants under the age of 18 years and amend the manuscript as necessary. 3. In the abstract it is stated that the study “was conducted from April to June 2017”, but in the methods section of the manuscript it is stated that the study “was conducted from May to June 2017”. Please clarify this discrepancy. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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 Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: No 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: Comments to the Authors: This research article has several strengths including addressing a significant public health concern with regard to alcohol use among pregnant women and identifying determinant factors. A key number of questions were examined in this study and the authors are commended for their important efforts. There are several recommendations for revision and these are highlighted below: Introduction 1. Are there national survey data (prevalence rates) for alcohol/drug use in the general population that can be included in the Background section, to provide some context for why this is a public health concern in Ethiopia? 2. Binge drinking is defined twice in the Background (line 73, and line 92) – it is only needed once. Methods 1. It is not clear how data was collected – were women approached while in the clinic? How was the study described to the women? Was there an incentive to complete study? How long did the interview take? 2. Were any participants currently in treatment for their alcohol use? Results and Discussion 1. The response rate of 92% is impressive. Were there any missing data and if so, how was that handled? 2. It may strengthen the Limitations/Discussion section to include obstacles to disclosing alcohol use, such as stigma, bias, and concerns about potential threat of punishment or legal consequences that may exist for these women? An additional note to the Authors: There are some sentences in the manuscript that are not clear, perhaps due to grammatical errors. Reviewer #2: The manuscript submitted is an important contribution to the literature. I have noted some concerns in the text and have provided detailed comments there. The manuscript will need some extensive revision in sentence construction and language. At times it is very unclear and hard to follow. the presentation at times also seems more suitable for a thesis and has not been adequately adapted for a scientific article if indeed this data/paper is from a thesis (such as the aims and operational definitions). There are parts of the results which i also felt can be presented differently such as the Awareness about the harmful effect of alcohol use and Assessment of family social support of respondents. These are subheadings with only one sentence giving prevalence which could just be reported in table 4 - i have highlighted this in the text. The paper would greatly benefit from a thorough review and more concise presentation. ****** 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-20-19931_reviewer PPW.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r001
Revision 1
11 Sep 2020 Author Response Thank you so much all of you, editors and the two reviewers, for reviewing the manuscript critically for the sake of publishing quality scientific research. Response to academic editor’s comment and questions 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 Answer: I made the manuscript in line with the requirements of PlOS ONE 2. For a question -During our internal evaluation we noted that participants provided verbal consent, did the ethics committees/IRBs approve this consent procedure? Answer: in the actual procedure of the work, a copy of the master thesis, mother document of this manuscript, it states that both verbal and written informed consent was obtained. Data collectors explained to participants about the objective of the study, procedures, and their right to refuse or discontinue the interview at any time and other important information. After participants heard and understood all the necessary information and consent statement, they have been asked about their willingness to be interviewed, which is verbal consent. Those volunteers were again asked to write their name and put their signature with the date of interview at a prepared blank space found below the information sheet and statement of consent, which is written consent. That means they provide both verbal and written informed consent. So, in the manuscript that states “only verbal consent” was an error and misunderstanding when it was written in research ethics subheading. Now, I accepted your comments and took a correction in this revised manuscript. 3. Contradictory of the message regarding pregnant women under age 18 in the section of exclusion criteria and ethical consideration. Answer: Yes, pregnant women start from 15 years old were enrolled in the study. Therefore, I removed the message that excludes women under 18 years old from the section of exclusion criteria. 4. In the abstract it is stated that the study “was conducted from April to June 2017”, but in the methods section of the manuscript it is stated that the study “was conducted from May to June 2017”. Answer: the right period of data collection was from May to June 2017. I amended it. 5. Requested to update ORCID ID. Answer: I did it. Response for Reviewers Reviewer 1 1. Are there national survey data (prevalence rates) for alcohol/drug use in the general population that can be included in the Background section, to provide some context for why this is a public health concern in Ethiopia? Answer: There are only local single articles in a different part of the country, and all reports that it the public health problems like the other countries across the world. But, there is no national survey study. 2. Strong comments in method section regarding how data collected, how women approached, how the research described, and about the destination of pregnant women who used alcohol in a risky way Answer: I accept all the comments and incorporate the raised concerns. Data collectors explained the objective and procedures of the study, and their right to refuse or discontinue the interview at any time to participants. Participants were aware of as the study has not any risk or direct benefit like incentives for them; it was only conducted for the achievement of objectives, and ultimately for improving health services of pregnant women and the community as a whole. After that, data collectors interviewed the selected participant in the face to face manner by using a structured questionnaire at the waiting room of the maternal care clinic that took around 15 minutes. Those who found risky of alcohol consumption has been linked to substance abuse clinic, and responsible leaders in selected health centers and maternal care clinics were recommended and noticed to initiate and strengthen prevention of alcohol consumption among pregnant women. 3. A question regarding missing data? Answer: From the beginning, we have been adding 10% of possible non-response participants on the calculated samples. The non-responses in a manuscript were refusals to participate but not missing data’s/values. Fortunately, the actual non-response rate was below the prior plan or expected non-response rate that couldn’t affect the analysis and conclusion. 4. A comment of adding stigma or any other thing that could hinder the disclosure of alcohol use. Answer: I understand your concern, and I try to add some possible perceived stigma. But, as I mentioned in the background of the study, there is a cultural acceptance of alcohol use in all demographic population. Since alcohol is historical and frequently used in our culture, which may be associated with Orthodox Christianity religion, stigma and punishment are not found. Reviewer 2 Answer: I saw all questions, comment and suggestion on each page of the document or manuscript that you gave me. I thank you for all you did on a manuscript. And I found it is essential for me and scientific research as well. I accepted all the comments and suggested solutions that you wrote and marked, and I corrected it in a document accordingly. I also received a note that you told me to incorporate the independent sub-heading variable (social support) with the next subheading in table four (associated factors- subheadings). But, I didn’t do for the variable of awareness about the harmful effect of alcohol consumption because this has a figure that describes and presents a descriptive message different from table four (associated factors). And I minimized the method sub-headings and merged it. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r002
14 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Yukiko Washio, Editor PONE-D-20-19931R1 Consumption of Alcohol and Binge Drinking among Pregnant Women in Health Institutions, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Prevalence and Determinant factors PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bitew, 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 Nov 28 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, Yukiko Washio, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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: The authors made helpful revisions to the manuscript based on reviewer's comments, thank you for your efforts. Reviewer #2: While most of my comments have been addressed there are still some comments that i have attached that need to be addressed. ****** 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 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-20-19931_R1_reviewer PPW 20201013.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r003
Revision 2
1 Nov 2020 Author Response Response to reviewers First, we thank you for the editors and reviewers! For both reviewer 1. We modified all the texts of a document and tried to present intelligently and write in a standard English For reviewer 2 We corrected all the comments and suggestions line by line you provide 1. Line 30-typing error 2. Line 52 and 53- grammar error 3. Line 64-verb problem 4. Line 69-symbol problem 5. Line 87 to 93- comments to remove and correct 6. 102 to104- ambiguous sentence 7. Line 107 and 108- 8. Line 113 9. Line 222 10. Line 228 and 229- it has not a problem; it is the title of figure 1 which should be placed below the paragraph of that message according to the guideline of PLoS one 11. Line 272 and 273- commented to remove Thank you again! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r004
12 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Yukiko Washio, Editor PONE-D-20-19931R2 Consumption of alcohol and binge drinking among pregnant women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: prevalence and determinant factors PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bitew, 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 Dec 27 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, Yukiko Washio, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: The authors have made revisions to the manuscript and it has been strengthened by these improvements. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 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-20-19931_R2_reviewer PPW 20201105.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r005
Revision 3
15 Nov 2020 Author Response First, we thank you for the editors and reviewers! For both reviewer 1. We modified all the texts of a document, presented it intelligently and wrote in standard English. 2. We performed statistical analysis appropriately and rigorously. For reviewer 2 � We modified all the texts of a document, presented it intelligently and wrote in standard English depending on your consecutive and valuable strong comments and suggestions you, the reviewers, provide. � We corrected all the comments and suggestion you provide line by line in the following way. 1. Line 84- we corrected a sentence as you suggest 2. Line 96- we remove an ambiguous and less important adjective word “Terrific”. 3. Line 206-we modified the phrase three-fourth as you comment. We hope this the time to accept the paper for publication! Thank you all again! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r006
26 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Yukiko Washio, Editor Consumption of alcohol and binge drinking among pregnant women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: prevalence and determinant factors PONE-D-20-19931R3 Dear Dr. Bitew, 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, Yukiko Washio, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: The authors addressed concerns and the manuscript has been strengthened by these revisions. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r007
Formally Accepted
10 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Yukiko Washio, Editor PONE-D-20-19931R3 Consumption of alcohol and binge drinking among pregnant women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: prevalence and determinant factors Dear Dr. Bitew: 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. Yukiko Washio Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243784.r008

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 .