Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2021
Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor

PONE-D-21-02215

A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gelan,

Your manuscript has now been reviewed by two referees who have raised concerns over the lack of detail regarding the sampling technique, as well as the definitions for hypertensives and control patients. There is also some ambiguity over the number of males and females in this study. Since this is fairly important information I invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by the reviewers and includes the needed information.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 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,

Colin Johnson, 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

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

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.960.2896&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12878-017-0093-9

https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3168/full/v5/i2/93.htm

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.

4. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[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: 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: 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: 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: 1. Authors did not show how they calculated the sample size. They should explain how they got the sample size.

2. Authors did not state the number of males and female in both cases and controls. This should be stated in the manuscript.

3. The sampling techniques was not well described in the methodology. The mention of convenient sampling is not enough.

4. The criteria for selecting the controls is not clearly described in the methodology section. Authors must describe this.

5. The operational definitions for the cases (hypertensives) and controls (normotensive) are not stated clearly stated. Authors must describe this.

Reviewer #2: I have read your manuscript with interest. In general, the paper addresses an issue that admittedly needs more study and attention. This is a manuscript where the authors examined the "A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia".

1. While appreciating the challenge of preparing a manuscript in the English language for many authors, the paper should be carefully edited by a native English-speaking editor.

2. No information about the physical activity records.

3. Please explain more about the implication of this study results. How can the study results help clinically?

4. The Discussion would be improved by detailing more specific implications for future studies.

5. The limitation of the study should be fully explained in the discussion section.

6. Please describe more about the novelty of manuscript in the introduction. It is very important for readers to know about this novelty.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Cover letter

Moges Wordofa

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Email: heranmakmow@gamil.com or moges.wordofa@aau.edu.et

Date: May 21, 2021

To: PLOS ONE

Dear Editorial:

We are glad to write this response to our paper entitled as “A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-02215) which has been requested to review for publication in PLOS ONE journal. We are pleased to have an opportunity to make our paper revised and we have greatly appreciated the editor’s comments and suggestions which were considered as very helpful. In revising the paper, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions on our revised submission.

Response to editorial correction

We have gone through the manuscript to edit and amend some editorial correction. By doing so, we have corrected language error and other topographical errors in the document. We have also prepared the manuscript according to PLOS ONE style requirements. Besides, if there is any error that we missed, we are very ready to correct it again.

Response to the reviewer’s comment

Dear Reviewers:

We are glad to write this response to our paper entitled as “A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-02215) which has been requested to review for publication in PLOS ONE journal. We are pleased to have an opportunity to make our paper revised and we have greatly appreciated your comments and suggestions which were considered as very helpful. In revising the paper, we have carefully considered the comments and suggestions on our revised submission. As instructed, we have attempted to thoroughly explain changes made to all comments and reply to each comment in point-by-point fashion as follows:

Response to Reviewer#1

Comment#1. “Authors did not show how they calculated the sample size. They should explain how they got the sample size.”

Response#1: The sample size was determined from a study in Indian based on mean and variance of hemoglobin. We used 95% CI and power of 0.8 as well as based on formula for double population of equal size mean. However, we enrolled additional participants other than the one we obtained using the formula. The purpose was to increase presentiveness of the sample to the general population.

Comment #2. “Authors did not state the number of males and female in both cases and controls. This should be stated in the manuscript.”

Response #2: The total number of males and females in both normotensive and hypertensive group were equal and it was 39 and 63, respectively. we have already included this in the result section of the manuscript in a previous submission.

Comment #3. “The sampling techniques was not well described in the methodology. The mention of convenient sampling is not enough.”

Response #3. As suggested by the reviewer, we have elaborated the technique in the methodology section.

Comment#4. “The criteria for selecting the controls are not clearly described in the methodology section. Authors must describe this”

Response#4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have clarified the donor selection criteria in methodology part of the manuscript.

Comment#5. “The operational definitions for the cases (hypertensives) and controls (normotensive) are not stated clearly stated. Authors must describe this”

Response#5. As suggested by the reviewer, we have included the definition of normotensive and hypertensive under operational definition in methodology section

Response to Reviewer#2

Comment#1: “While appreciating the challenge of preparing a manuscript in the English language for many authors, the paper should be carefully edited by a native English-speaking editor”

Response#1: The manuscript is thoroughly revised by native English writer in the field and linguistic errors are corrected

Comments#2: “No information about the physical activity records”.

Response#2: we thought it is irrelevant to the study

Comment#3: “Please explain more about the implication of this study results. How can the study results help clinically?”

Response#3: As suggested by the reviewer, the significance of the study is addressed in the introduction part of the manuscript.

Comment#4: “The Discussion would be improved by detailing more specific implications for future studies”

Response#4: It has been included as it could be used as a baseline for performing further advanced studies including lipid profile and others

Comment#5: “The limitation of the study should be fully explained in the discussion section”

Response#5: We have included the limitation of the study in the discussion

Comment#6: “Please describe more about the novelty of manuscript in the introduction. It is very important for readers to know about this novelty.”

Response#6: We have tried to include novelty and necessity of this study among hypertensive patients in the country and worldwide.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you again for your consideration!

Sincerely,

Moges Wordofa

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor

PONE-D-21-02215R1

A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia .

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gelan,

Your revised manuscript has been reviewed, and neither reviewer recommended publication of the revision. Specifically concern has been raised regarding separation of males and females during analysis.  If you believe you can address this issue, submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the point raised.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 10 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,

Colin Johnson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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 Response)

**********

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: my comments is that when dealing with hematological parameters, authors will have to seperate male from females in the analysis. hematological parameters for males and female cannot be analysed together they must be separated.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 2

I have tried to address the comment suggested by the reviewer and I have included the correction in the revised manuscript

Thank you

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor

A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia .

PONE-D-21-02215R2

Dear Dr. Gelan,

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,

Colin Johnson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor

PONE-D-21-02215R2

A comparative study of hematological parameters between hypertensive and normotensive individuals in Harar, eastern Ethiopia.

Dear Dr. Wordofa:

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. Colin Johnson

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 .