Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-29119 A local-ingredients-based supplement is an alternative to corn-soy blends plus for treating moderate acute malnutrition among children aged 6 to 59 months: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nane, 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 Mar 04 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:
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, Seth Adu-Afarwuah 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 2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study. As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper: 1) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started); 2) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered. 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: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: The manuscript entitled ‘’A local-ingredients-based supplement is an alternative to corn-soy blends plus for treating moderate acute malnutrition among children aged 6 to 59 months: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia” with the aim to compare a local-ingredients-based supplement (LIBS) with the standard corn-soy blend plus (CSB+) in treating MAM among children aged 6 to 59 months to test the hypothesis that the recovery rate achieved with LIBS will not be more than 7% worse than that achieved with CSB+. The manuscript requires further improvement based on the following comments. Page 8 Line 160, the sentence ‘’The two research teams included two supervisors, 12 data collectors and 18 food distributers’ to be revised and clearly the numbers for each team. Sample size calculation Page 9, 1 or 2-tailed test to be stated. Randomization Page 10 Allocation concealment to be stated. Page 10 Line 202-206 the steps/process not clear and requires revision. Statistical analysis Page 14, Line 279, the version and publisher name for SPSS and STATA to be stated. Page 14 Line 283, the word student’s to be omitted from Student’s chi-square test Page 14 Line 281-286, for statistical tests, 1 or 2-tailed test to be stated. The registration of the clinical trial to be stated. Page 15 Line 303, ‘’No serious adverse reactions were detected’’ to be placed in results section. The statistical tests which were mentioned in the statistical analysis section to be clearly indicated/denoted in the table(s)/ figure(s)/text results Results Based on CONSORT guidelines, all statistical analyses at baseline for group comparison (Table 2) to be avoided. Page 14 Line 283, the sentence ‘’medians with the use of the Mantel-Haenszel test’ not clear and requires revision. Page 17 Table 2, decimal points to be standardized. Likewise in other sections where applicable. Page 18 Line 343-353, more than 1 decimal point for p value to be provided. Decimal points for 95%CI to be standardized. Page 19 Table 3, baseline data/findings to be presented apart from results in Week 12 and followed by difference. Both ITT and PP results to be presented. Page 20 Line 383-387, separate diagram to be presented to show both ITT and PP results. Page 20 Line 383, the sentence ‘’The difference in recovery time was not statistically significant (p=0.8)’not clear and requires revision. Figure 1, the background dark colour to be removed. Figure 1 and 4 The ITT and PP analysis to be provided. Figure 4, p value for group comparison to be stated. For the Figure 2, 3, 4 title, description of character A, B, C and D to be clearly denoted in the figures. Otherwise the labelling A, B, C, D to be omitted. Reviewer #2: This is an important study and I appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed it. The o is excellent. Please refer to the attached marked up document for specifics on revisions. Major recommendations: 1. do a thorough job of defining MAM - it is incomplete 2. do a thorough job of specifying what is meant by sugar, oil, vegetable oil - these are general terms 3. focus the Introduction - some of the info here is better combined and condensed into the Discussion Reviewer #3: Overall comment This is a well-designed study and makes a strong case for a potential use of a supplementary food product from local ingredients for management of moderate acute malnutrition in Ethiopian context. Find some specific comments below: Abstract - Prevalence of wasting (12.5%)—does it include SAM and MAM? - The 7% recovery rate with LIBS—how was this determined, random or evidence based? Why not 5% or 10% - please provide some description if not already provided in the main text - Treatment time length was not specified in the abstract (how long did the treatment last?) - Conclusion sounds a bit too strong just for a first of such a study and in a just a small locality… Introduction - Line 111-112: Non inferiority trial of local product at least as effective as the standard product (CSB+) (does this align with the hypothesis that local product efficacy no less 7% recovery rate?) - Last paragraph (line 114-117): “Besides this, adequate research has not been conducted in Ethiopia on LIBS, even though it has the potential to contribute to treating MAM. The evidence drawn from this study will be shared with the public, policymakers, and scholars, as LIBS has the potential to increase recovery from MAM and decrease the burden of malnutrition.” – it may be appropriate to briefly mention local research on supplementary foods using local ingredient for treatment of acute malnutrition. - Also the discussion re the benefits of LIBS and its promotion to decision makers should come in the discussion/conclusion section. Material and methods - Describe the specific kebele’s the study subjects were recruited from - Exclusion criteria – how did you apply the criteria (who determined if the child was ill/had medical complication, or was SAM case, etc.) please describe. - Why is the objective of the study in materials & methods section (line 147-151) – please move to the end of introduction section. - Line 151: how is the 7% margin determined? What would be acceptable margin, 10%, 5% or 3%, etc.? - Line 166 – 168: What were the supplementary food distribution techniques, cooking process and feeding procedures? Who are these people? - Line 188: “skilled data collectors” – skilled in what? Either describe that or better to say “trained data collector” - Line 189: “randomly selected kebeles”- why randomly select kebeles? Does it have any relevance for your objective and type of study? - Line 247-249: The composition of the LIBS product (expressed per 100 g) and the ingredient amounts do not match up (“30 g of pumpkin seed, 25 g of peanut grain, - 249 20 g of amaranth grain, 15 g of flaxseed, 10 g of emmer wheat, 25.2 g of sugar and 8 ml of oil.” Is more than the 100 g of LIBS)… Results - Lines 301-302 & 334: if literacy rate was low in the area, how did you manage to obtain “written informed consent”? Discussions - Line 447: “The length/height gain was not comparable between the two groups.” ….was or was not comparable? I think this might be a typo error. Conclusion - Your conclusion here and in the abstract seem a bit different (in the abstract, you make a stronger claim of LIBS being an “effective alternative” to CSB+). Since your study has not shown feasibility of cost, product shelf life, reliability of local ingredient supplies, etc. you might want to tone down your conclusions. Reviewer #4: This was a very interesting, well-written paper describing the possible use of locally produced food supplements in Ethiopia. It is clear that the CONSORT statements were used to execute the study and write the paper, even if it is not officially declared. Data analyses included per-protocol and intention-to-treat results. I only have a few comments: 1. Line 27: it is not clear why 7% recovery rate was used as a cut-off value to make conclusions regarding non-inferiority. Please elaborate on this. In the abstract as well as the text. 2. Line 99: Did the LIBS contain vitamin and mineral supplements similar to the CBS+? 3. Line 111: replace demonstrate with determine. 4. Line 250: the text read: this supplement..... does that mean one serving contained the mentioned supplements or was this daily contribution to total consumption per day? Please elaborate on this. Line 402: Provide the recovery rates of "MAM with child-centred counselling interventions only" to give a clear picture of the impact of the supplementary feeding. General comments: 1. Was there any part of the study that focussed on relapse? 2. Did the fieldworkers actually observe the consumption of the supplements at all times and of all meals? What was the possibility of sharing amongst other family members? I understand that provision was made for twins, but what about other family members? 3. Was the actual amount consumed measured or only the amount provided to the child? In other words, did the fieldworkers weigh food before and after consumption? The lack of additional food consumption data was a serious limitation so it is not clear if the children consumed only the supplement or additional family food. 4. The randomisation of the included children was described in detail, but it is unclear how the Kebeles were selected. The paper (line 134) only states “selected kebeles” and line 189: randomly selected kebeles. Please elaborate on this as it might influence the representativeness of the study participants. 5. It is unclear who knew the allocation of the two groups since the food distributors were also blinded. If the producers knew the difference between the two, when was allocation revealed? It is also not clear how many portion participants consumed per day (all at one meal, or spread throughout the day?) ********** 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: Yes: Michael I Lindinger Reviewer #3: Yes: Getahun Ersino (also Getahun Lombamo) Reviewer #4: Yes: MJ Lombard [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 |
PONE-D-20-29119R1 A local-ingredients-based supplement is an alternative to corn-soy blends plus for treating moderate acute malnutrition among children aged 6 to 59 months: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nane, 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 make sure to address each of the comments carefully. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 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:
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, Seth Adu-Afarwuah 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: For Table 2, statistical testing to be avoided for baseline comparison between the two groups. Baseline statistical testing is only applicable to cluster randomization trial. Please refer to CONSORT statement. Reviewer #2: the format of the author response is brutal and extremely difficult to read. I find it very difficult to know what has been added into the revised version, because the additions are not indicated. In my view, the revisions I requested are necessary to improve the organization, readability and presentation of the material. Merely adding a few words, or referring to another part of the manuscript is not OK. If the authors are not willing to use the recommendations constructively, then the paper should be rejected. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Well done on the changes, it made a significant difference to the quality of the paper. Please have a look for a few minor editing problems. ********** 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: Yes: Michael Lindinger Reviewer #3: Yes: Getahun Ersino Reviewer #4: Yes: Martani Lombard [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
PONE-D-20-29119R2 A local-ingredients-based supplement is an alternative to corn-soy blends plus for treating moderate acute malnutrition among children aged 6 to 59 months: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nane, 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 Sep 02 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:
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, Miquel Vall-llosera Camps Senior Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Please address the language/syntax issues raised by Reviewer#3. 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 Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for an excellent revision yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy . Reviewer #3: Authors have addressed comments and concerns raised in the initial review. However a thorough editing of the paper for language/syntax would increases its readability. Please avoid using some unusual/uncommon abbreviations (e.g., AM to refer to acute malnutrition. I don't see any value in abbreviating it other than adding confusion). Use abbreviation only where needed. I trust the authors would address these comments in their own terms before the paper gets published and I do not expect a separate response here. ********** 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: Yes: Michael I Lindinger Reviewer #3: Yes: Getahun Ersino [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 3 |
A local-ingredients-based supplement is an alternative to corn-soy blends plus for treating moderate acute malnutrition among children aged 6 to 59 months: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia PONE-D-20-29119R3 Dear Dr. Nane, 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, Miquel Vall-llosera Camps Senior Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-29119R3 A local-ingredients-based supplement is an alternative to corn-soy blends plus for treating moderate acute malnutrition among children aged 6 to 59 months: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia Dear Dr. Nane: 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. Miquel Vall-llosera Camps Staff 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 .