PONE-D-21-01555

Full immunization coverage and associated factors among children aged 12-23 months in Somali Region, Eastern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yadita,

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.

I encourage you to carefully review and address the concerns and comments raised by the reviewers. Among other issues raised, in this revision, please pay particular attention to the methodological and language concerns raised by Reviewer #2. These revisions are intended to improve the quality of the article.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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:

• 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,

Comfort Z Olorunsaiye, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. In the Methods, please clarify that participants provided oral consent. Please also state in the Methods:

- Why written consent could not be obtained

- Whether the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved use of oral consent

- How oral consent was documented

- Whether consent was obtained from the guardians/parents of minors

For more information, please see our guidelines for human subjects research: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

4.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a great paper, I have enjoyed reading it.

Authors are encouraged to read through the manuscript for any typographic errors. More specifically on page 15; line 203 where figure 1 is indicated twice.

Reviewer #2: Topic: Full immunization coverage and associated factors among children aged 12-23 months in Somali Region, Eastern Ethiopia.

Version 1

General comments

Abstract:

1. Better to adhere the guide line of PLoS one journal. All major sections is needed

2. The knowledge gap is not well addressed that needs to be explained more at abstract section

3. Word consistency “associated factors or predictor factors”

4. At method section, say something about measurement and type of model for different outcome interest of the study.

5. At result section, result should be stick to the objective of the study

Introduction

1. Authors should briefly explain what has been done so far. To be more interesting, author need to consider “what is the additional knowledge has is this study going to generate”? The knowledge gap is not well addressed in the introduction of the manuscript and needs to be explained more.

2. Explain why more work/research is necessary. What contribution to knowledge that the research will make and its place in current debate or technological advances

3. Some references are olds, needs to be justify the research question or problem by using current evidences

4. There are some studies conducted in the study area, what additional knowledge gap is addressed by this study.

5. A grammatical and linguistic edit is essential for this manuscript, as the numerous issues are apparent in it and make understanding the provided draft difficult

6. What is the objective of the study? Word consistency, at introduction section assess prevalence and factors, at abstract section “Identifying predictor factors, assessed full-immunization and associated factors, at method part “assess coverage and associated factors of full immunization”----these all makes confusion for the reader.

Method and materials

1. A Method part looks like master thesis protocol. Concepts should be explained based on the guideline of the journal

2. Authors said “study populations were randomly selected children aged 12-23 months with their mothers/caregivers residing in the Somali region”. How randomly select the study population? What random method means?

3. What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria

4. At sampling technique and procedure section important information is missed, like total number of kebeles in the district, total number of the households in the selected kebeles, Authors apply systematic random sampling method, how to apply important step/information/ is not documented.

5. If authors conduct pretest, what was the modified things, you should be report and document in the manuscript

6. Your tool is adopted from DHS and another literature with some modification, so it needs tool validation, How to check reliability and validity of the tool? Cite the source of tools? The procedure of data collection?

7. What are unique variables/factors/ examined compared to the pervious available studies. All identified variables are already addressed previously studies. therefore, include variable should not be redundant

8. In the measurement section, what is the reference for the standardized tool for full immunization measurement? Also, please add whether the tool is standardized for the Ethiopian population or not. How many knowledge questions are asked? How the questions are designed?

9. Statistical analysis, replace by data processing and analysis important information are lacking like Checking of assumption (Normality and interaction effect)

10. Who approve the study? How get consent? Ethical consideration is the major concern today

Results

1. Results did not provide new knowledge in this field

2. In the regression table, some of the results indicates wide confidence interval, are you trusting these findings?

Discussions:

1. It is quite poor and repeats a lot of known facts without making any point as to how this current study contributes. A lot of results are repeated in the discussion. What are the innovative ideas, for scale up and ensure quality and safe services? Formulate clear what is innovating idea in the study.

2. Your results may be affected by social desirability bias because questionnaires were collected by interviewers; the participants were unable to remain anonymous. This should be mentioned in the limitations section.

Conclusion section:

1. Conclusion is repeated, there is significant disconnect between the results presented and the conclusions made. There was no evidence in the results or anywhere else that they looked at the possible barriers and strategies for that country under question. They can suggest but not make a hard conclusion that those strategies would work or hinder.

Recommendation: This paper is below the scope of the journal, so consider after major changes

**********

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.

Full immunization coverage and associated factors among children aged 12-23 months in Somali Region, Eastern Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-01555R1

Dear Dr. Yadita,

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,

Comfort Z Olorunsaiye, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

This manuscript will still require careful editing to address typographical and grammatical errors prior to publication. 

Reviewers' comments: