Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 24, 2020
Decision Letter - Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, Editor

PONE-D-20-36968

Spatial variations and associated factors of Knowledge of ORS packet or pre-packaged liquids for the management of diarrhea among women of reproductive age in Ethiopia: a spatial and multilevel analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teshale,

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 Feb 26 2021 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,

Vijayaprasad Gopichandran

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. We note that Figures 1-4 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

2.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1-4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09541-4

- https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-15540/v1

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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: 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: 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: The article describes the spatial variations in the knowledge of ORS packet (therapy) or Pre-packed liquids among the women of reproductive age group in Ethiopia. I appreciate the team efforts for conducting the robust geo-spatial analysis which potentially aids targeted public health interventions.

Major Issues:

1) The article had a lot of grammatical errors and will need major editing and revision. I would suggest using a copyeditor to improve the flow and readability once the revision is ready for submission.

Minor issues:

2) L 56- I would suggest to reconsider the using brand name “LEM LEM”. Using brand names in the scientific communication is not advisable in general.

3) L 58-61 Two consecutive sentences start with “Different literature”, consider rephrasing it

EDHS is a methods and reports are available in the public domain. The section titled “Sampling technique, sample size, and population” is not clear. Please rewrite this section to give a better experience for readers.

I suggest to give references for data source and methodology.

4) L 94-97 The definition of “Knowledge of ORS” which was the outcome of the study is unclear. I suggest to mention the exact definition used in the Ethiopia DHS, 2016.

5) I suggest to present the multilevel analysis first followed spatial analysis under methods as well as in result section. Describe the spatial analysis in detail (example: assumptions used, methods used, variables, defining threshold level, clustering etc.). The detailed description of analysis would help others to reproduce the analysis.

6) Under the discussion section, discuss how this analysis would be useful in implementing public health interventions.

**********

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

[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

Date: February 12, 2021

Point by point response

Title: Spatial variations and associated factors of Knowledge of ORS packet or pre-packaged liquids for the management of diarrhea among women of reproductive age in Ethiopia: a spatial and multilevel analysis

Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-36968

Dear editor and reviewer, thank you for the valuable comments you raised for the betterment of our manuscript. Really, the comments were important and we put the point-by-point response below. We also incorporated the comments and suggestions in the revised manuscript.

Thank you in advance!

Response to editor comment

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

Author’s response: Thank you. We ensure that the revised manuscript meets the PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

2. We note that Figures 1-4 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth).

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission.

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. These figures are not copyrighted from other sources rather they are our findings using Arc-GIS version 10.3 and SaTScan version 9.6 statistical softwares. After getting the shape file of Ethiopia in the website https://africaopendata.org/dataset/ethiopia-shapefiles, we generate the figures using the GPs (latitude and longitude) data and the outcome variable using ArcGIS version 10.3 and SaTScan version 9.6 statistical softwares. So all the figures are not copyrighted from other source rather we generate using the software.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09541-4

- https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-15540/v1

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. We have considered your comment in the revised manuscript; we avoid the overlapped texts with the given published works.

Response to reviewer comment (Reviewer #1)

Major Issues:

1. The article had a lot of grammatical errors and will need major editing and revision.

Author’s response: We extensively edited the manuscript for grammatical errors, by consulting our colleagues and language experts who had many years’ experience in the area of literature at University of Gondar. A copy of our manuscript showing the changes is indicated by using track changes (See the track-changed manuscript).

Minor issues:

2. L 56- I would suggest to reconsider the using brand name “LEM LEM”. Using brand names in the scientific communication is not advisable in general.

Author’s response: Thank you. We have consider your issue in the revised manuscript.

3. L 58-61 Two consecutive sentences start with “Different literature”, consider rephrasing it

Author’s response: Thank you. We rephrase these sentences in the revised manuscript.

EDHS is a methods and reports are available in the public domain. The section titled “Sampling technique, sample size, and population” is not clear. Please rewrite this section to give a better experience for readers. I suggest to give references for data source and methodology.

Author’s response: Really, thank you for the important concern you raised. We have rewritten the section “Sampling technique, sample size, and population”; we have putted these in the data source section of the method and we have incorporated the reference in the revised manuscript.

4. L 94-97 The definition of “Knowledge of ORS” which was the outcome of the study is unclear. I suggest to mention the exact definition used in the Ethiopia DHS, 2016.

Author’s response: Thank you. We used the DHS guide and the EDHS 2016 report to assess Knowledge about ORS packet or prepackaged liquids. Women had knowledge about ORS packet or pre-packaged liquids if she heard about it or she used it for the management of diarrhea. We have extracted the outcome variable using v208 > 0 & v416 in 1, 2. Therefore, that is why we used that definition (the definition is in line with the EDHS 2016).

5. I suggest to present the multilevel analysis first followed spatial analysis under methods as well as in result section. Describe the spatial analysis in detail (example: assumptions used, methods used, variables, defining threshold level, clustering etc.).The detailed description of analysis would help others to reproduce the analysis.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment and put the multilevel analysis first in the method, result, and discussion sections. In addition, we have described the spatial analysis accordingly and we put references for anyone who is interested to know about the assumptions and other information regarding the spatial analysis.

6. Under the discussion section, discuss how this analysis would be useful in implementing public health interventions.

Author’s response: Thank you. We have discussed the public health implication of our study in the revised manuscript (see the last paragraph of the discussion section).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, Editor

Spatial variations and associated factors of Knowledge of ORS packet or pre-packaged liquids for the management of diarrhea among women of reproductive age in Ethiopia: a spatial and multilevel analysis

PONE-D-20-36968R1

Dear Dr. Teshale,

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,

Vijayaprasad Gopichandran

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, Editor

PONE-D-20-36968R1

Spatial variations and associated factors of Knowledge of ORS packet or pre-packaged liquids for the management of diarrhea among women of reproductive age in Ethiopia: a spatial and multilevel analysis

Dear Dr. Teshale:

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. Vijayaprasad Gopichandran

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 .