Factors related with the incidence of acute respiratory infections in toddlers in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Evidence from the Sleman Health and Demographic Surveillance System

Fathmawati Fathmawati; Saidah Rauf; Braghmandita Widya Indraswari

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257881

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 10, 2020
21 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Muhammad Aziz Rahman, Editor PONE-D-20-38919 Factors related with the incidence of acute respiratory infections in toddlers in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Evidence from The Sleman Health and Demographic Surveillance System PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fathmawati, 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 Jun 05 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Muhammad Aziz Rahman, MBBS, MPH, CertGTC, GCHECTL, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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 ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately. Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations. 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. 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: 3a) 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. 3b) 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: This paper uses data from Sleman HDSS (Health and Demographic Surveillance System) wave 1, 2, 3. The Sleman HDSS data collection has been primarily funded by Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 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: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Additional Editor Comments: Please address the comments of both reviewers for our further consideration. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: 1. In the introduction, researchers clearly mentioned the problem statement but did not justify why it is important to conduct this study in a HDSS site; they also did not mention how the HDSS-based study findings will contribute in policy making. 2. The experiment was not conducted rigorously. The authors did not mention how they calculated the sample size and why they used the purposive sampling methods in a cross-sectional observational study. Purposive sampling is suitable for qualitative research. 3. In the study design, they mentioned that they analyzed the secondary data from 2015 to 2017 but at the line 63, they mentioned that the study population was from HDSS data in 2017. They need to explain this discrepancy clearly. They also did not mention whether this HDSS site is urban or rural based. 4. Except the source of drinking water as a protective factor, the study did not find the significant relationship with any other important predictors like mothers’ education level and occupation, occupancy density, physical condition of house, use of mosquito coil. This study finding is also inconsistent with many other study findings which is not explained properly by the authors. This contradiction may be due to use of inappropriate sampling method. Though authors decided to select the appropriate statistical analysis method but it is not appropriate to run the statistical analysis using a purposive sample in a cross-sectional observational study. 5. Authors mentioned that data can’t be shared without the permission of the management team but data which are available in the table is sufficient to understand the study findings 6. In the conclusion, they did not make any specific recommendation to the policy makers. 7. Nonetheless the manuscript is presented in an understandable way, still it needs to improve further. Such as: a. authors mainly compared this study finding with African-based studies instead of Asian countries; it may affect the policy makers to make the applicable decision b. Typo: prevalence at the line 128, it should be incidence c. Line 152, they mentioned “similar results were reported by [8,9,35] and in Line 201, they mentioned “this research is consistent with [17]; this is not the appropriate way to mention it when they will compare their study findings with other study findings. Reviewer #2: This article need to give more information about the reason why some of independent variables was not have signicantly related to ARI. Please write argumentation for each factor. This contains is very important to ellaborate the condition that different with the other study ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257881.r001
Revision 1
10 Jul 2021 Author Response Reviewer#1: 1. In the introduction, researchers clearly mentioned the problem statement but did not justify why it is important to conduct this study in a HDSS site; they also did not mention how the HDSS-based study findings will contribute in policy making. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a description of the importance of this research and its benefits for policymakers. This change can be seen in lines 77 - 83. 2. The experiment was not conducted rigorously. The authors did not mention how they calculated the sample size and why they used the purposive sampling methods in a cross-sectional observational study. Purposive sampling is suitable for qualitative research. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We used the entire population of children under five in the Sleman HDSS data that matched the inclusion criteria. We did not include children with exclusion criteria in this study. We have changed the description of the research method. This change is in lines 96 - 99. 3. In the study design, they mentioned that they analyzed the secondary data from 2015 to 2017 but at the line 63, they mentioned that the study population was from HDSS data in 2017. They need to explain this discrepancy clearly. They also did not mention whether this HDSS site is urban or rural based. Response: Agree. We have accordingly revised the method section by adding a description of the research area and the data obtained. The changes can be seen in lines 96, 105 - 110. Response: Thank you. For some of the variables, we have added descriptions. However, in terms of occupancy density, we have explained that there is no relationship between occupancy density and the incidence of ARI because only a small proportion of respondents' houses do not meet the standards. Same is the case with the type of wall of the house. We have also revised the methods section on sampling. This study did not take a sample but used data from the entire population of children under five who met the criteria. We added some explanations of the cause of the absence of a relationship between several variables studied with ARI in children under five. The changes can be seen in Lines 173 – 175 (for toddler’s sex). Line 184 – 187 (for toddler’s age) Line 188 – 195 (for low birth weight) Line 199 – 205 (for immunization) We added some explanations about mother’s education that has no relationship to ARI. The changes can be seen in lines 215 – 219. We added some explanations about mother’s occupation that has no relationship to ARI. The changes can be seen in lines 229 – 235. We added some explanations about occupancy density in line 254 – 255. We added some explanations about ceilings in line 267 – 270. We revised the explanation about mosquito coils in line 278 – 283. 5. Authors mentioned that data can’t be shared without the permission of the management team but data which are available in the table is sufficient to understand the study findings. Response: Thank You 6. In the conclusion, they did not make any specific recommendation to the policy makers. Response: We agree with this and revised the conclusion. It can be seen in line 338 – 348. 7. Nonetheless the manuscript is presented in an understandable way, still it needs to improve further. Such as: a. authors mainly compared this study finding with African-based studies instead of Asian countries; it may affect the policy makers to make the applicable decision. Response: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have replaced and added some research according to your suggestions. b. Typo: prevalence at the line 128, it should be incidence Response: Thank you. We have fixed it. c. Line 152, they mentioned “similar results were reported by [8,9,35] and in Line 201, they mentioned “this research is consistent with [17]; this is not the appropriate way to mention it when they will compare their study findings with other study findings. Response: Thank you. We have fixed it. Reviewer #2: This article needs to give more information about the reason why some of independent variables was not have significantly related to ARI. Please write argumentation for each factor. This contains is very important to elaborate the condition that different with the other study. Response: Thank you. We have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257881.r002
26 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Muhammad Aziz Rahman, Editor PONE-D-20-38919R1 Factors related with the incidence of acute respiratory infections in toddlers in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Evidence from The Sleman Health and Demographic Surveillance System PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fathmawati, 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 address the issue of justification and revise the conclusion section, as advised by the reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Associate Professor Dr Muhammad Aziz Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 ******** 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: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Though, authors tried their level best to answer our queries, still there is room for improvement a. there is lack of strong justification "why HDSS data is important for local policy makers"; does it mean that there is no other local data except HDSS to help the policy makers to make their decisions? b. Very weak conclusion; 1st recommendation is related to immunization where authors mentioned that it is not related to ARI; 2nd recommendation is related to breastfeeding which is not supported by study findings/data ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257881.r003
Revision 2
6 Sep 2021 Author Response Dr. Fathmawati Fathmawati Department of Environmental Health, Politeknik Kesehatan Kemenkes Pontianak, Indonesia Email: fathmawati@poltekkes-pontianak.ac.id or fathmawati.ema@gmail.com Pontianak, 19 August 2021 Dear Dr. Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE We have a desire to thank you and the reviewers who allowed us the opportunity to revise our paper entitled "Factors associated with the incidence of ARI in Toddlers in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Evidence from The Sleman Health and Demographic Surveillance System" and provide valuable comments. We think our paper will be better than the previous version after revising according to your precious views and comments. We hope that this manuscript afterward's careful revision meets your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any. Below we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow. RESPONSES TO ACADEMIC EDITOR Here are responses to the improvements we had to make: Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have reviewed the references and corrected the retracted papers. To ensure our references are complete and correct, we complete all articles published in the journal with DOI while other references with URLs. In addition, we also added the title of the paper in the original version using Indonesian. We present the details of the changes in the bibliography: No. Number in 2nd version Number in 3rd version Changes 1. 1 1 Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/infection-prevention-and-control-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-prone-acute-respiratory-infections-in-health-care 2. 2 2 Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/324835 3. 3 3 Available: https://www.litbang.kemkes.go.id/laporan-riset-kesehatan-dasar-riskesdas/ 4. 8 8 doi:10.33846/hn.v1i3.59 5. 9 9 [Cakupan imunisasi dasar dengan kejadian ISPA pada balita usia 1-3 tahun di wilayah Puskesmas Wonosari 1 Kabupaten Gunung Kidul] 6. 11 11 [Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kejadian infeksi saluran pernapasan akut (ISPA) pada anak usia 12-59 bulan di Puskesmas Tebet Barat, Kecamatan Tebet, Jakarta Selatan] 7. 14 14 Tarmure S, Alexescu TG, Orasan O, Negrean V, Sitar-Taut AV, Coste SC, et al. Influence of pesticides on respiratory pathology – A literature review. Ann Agric Env Med. 2020;27: 194–200. doi:10.26444/aaem/121899 8. 27 27 doi:10.4103/0974-777X.107167 9. 37 37 Available: https://dinkes.slemankab.go.id/download 10. 38 38 doi:10.37638/jsk.25.3.1-13 11. 39 39 Available: https://yogyakarta.bps.go.id/pressrelease/2019/05/06/951/indeks-pembangunan-manusia-d-i--yogyakarta-2018.html 12. 40 40 Puspitasari E. The dual role of women in working mothers in Pakembinangun, Pakem, Sleman, Yogyakarta [Peran ganda perempuan pada ibu bekerja di desa Pakembinangun, Pakem, Sleman, Yogyakarta]. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. 2016. Available: http://eprints.uny.ac.id/37957/ 13. 42 42 Available: http://digilib.unisayogya.ac.id/338/ 14. 43 43 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21927/ijnd.2019.7(3).89-96 15. 45 Remove 16. 53 52 Available: http://eprints.ums.ac.id/86266/ 17. 56 55 [Hubungan paparan asap dengan kejadian infeksi saluran pernapasan akut (ISPA) pada anak usia 0-5 tahun di wilayah pertanian Kecamatan Panti, Kabupaten Jember] doi:10.14710/jekk.v5i2.7152 18. 59 58 [Evaluasi potensi mataair untuk kebutuhan air domestik di Kecamatan Cangkringan Kabupaten Sleman pasca erupsi Merapi 2010] 19. 60 59 Available: http://www.slemankab.go.id/profil-kabupaten-sleman/geografi/karakteristik-wilayah 20. 64 63 [Evaluasi kinerja PDAM Sleman di bidang operasi dan pelayanan pada ibukota Kecamatan Prambanan, Kalasan, Ngemplak, Bimomartani, Condong Catur] Available: https://dspace.uii.ac.id/handle/123456789/16317 21. 65 64 [Hasil Survei Kualitas Air di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 2015] Available: https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2016/11/03/26dd424f1c7391a6c62adf33/hasil-survei-kualitas-air-di-daerah-istimewa-yogyakarta-tahun-2015.html 22. 68 67 [Evaluasi pengendalian kinerja kualitas air minum pada depot air minum isi ulang di Kabupaten Sleman, Yogyakarta] RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Though, authors tried their level best to answer our queries, still there is room for improvement a. there is lack of strong justification "why HDSS data is important for local policy makers"; does it mean that there is no other local data except HDSS to help the policy makers to make their decisions? Response: Thank you. We have added the explanation that can be seen in line 88 – 90. The Sleman HDSS is the only surveillance system in Sleman that collects data on population transitions, health status and social transitions periodically since 2015. b. Very weak conclusion; 1st recommendation is related to immunization where authors mentioned that it is not related to ARI; 2nd recommendation is related to breastfeeding which is not supported by study findings/data Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the conclusion. The changes can be seen in line 339 – 344. Respondents who use tap water or refilled drinking water depots are at risk of experiencing ARI. The following Sleman HDSS survey must pay attention to the quality of water consumed by respondents, especially E. coli and nitrates. Further research needs to analyze the relationship between water quality and the incidence of ARI. It is to ensure the relationship between the use of water sources and the incidence of ARI in children under five so that the government can determine the right policy in reducing the morbidity of ARI in children under five. We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Thanks for your kindly. Best Regards, Dr. Fathmawati Fathmawati Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257881.r004
14 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Muhammad Aziz Rahman, Editor Factors related with the incidence of acute respiratory infections in toddlers in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Evidence from The Sleman Health and Demographic Surveillance System PONE-D-20-38919R2 Dear Dr. Fathmawati, 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, Associate Professor Dr Muhammad Aziz Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257881.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Sep 2021 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Aziz Rahman, Editor PONE-D-20-38919R2 Factors related with the incidence of acute respiratory infections in toddlers in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Evidence from The Sleman Health and Demographic Surveillance System Dear Dr. Fathmawati: 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 Associate Professor Dr. Muhammad Aziz Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257881.r006

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 .