Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 4, 2021
Decision Letter - Francesca Crovetto, Editor

PONE-D-21-24852The magnitude of Neonatal Asphyxia and its Associated Factors among newborns; A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dejenie 

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 17/01/2022. 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: https://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,

Francesca Crovetto

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. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0226891

https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-020-03348-2

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.

Authors should consider the following recommendations:

- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.

- I would recommend to highlight clearly other conditions that may cause adverse obstetric outcomes, including neonatal asphyxia, such as advanced maternal age (PMID: 25027820), pre-eclampsia (PMID: 26512423; PMID: 32283429) and obstructed labor (PMID: 31823037; PMID: 32307556 ).

Reviewer #2: This is a cross sectional study analyzing cases of fetal asphyxia in northwest Ethiopia.

The article has some inconsistencies. The most evident are:

- In the abstract you say " The diagnosis of birth

asphyxia was confirmed based on the physician’s diagnosis of an APGAR score < 7 in

the 1 st and 5 th minutes of birth". IN the text you say "The diagnosis of birth asphyxia was made based on the fifth-minute APGAR scores of < 7 ". Please correct

- Regarding the antepartal visits, you reported in the text that 59.1% of patients had 4 or more visits, while in the table they are 54.09%

- Married women are 325 (91.1%) in the text and 32 (8.9%) in the table

I recommend reviewing all correspondences between text and tables.

In table 4 you wrote about "Neonatal medical problem at birth" that 286 babies had no problems, 41 sepsis, 19 birth injury and 11 congenital malformation. It is not clear where the 97 cases of childbirth asphyxia fit in.

In lines 192-193 In lines 192-193 you divide fetal asphyxia into moderate and severe but it is not defined by what criteria this subdivision is carried out.

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

January 28, 2022

Rebuttal letter

PONE-D-21-24852

The magnitude of neonatal asphyxia and its associated factors among newborns; a cross-sectional study

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the critical review and constructive suggestions to improve our manuscript. Based on the comments and suggestions, we have made corrections and modifications and provided point-by-point responses to comments and suggestions. Please, find our responses in a green mark to comments/suggestions presented by academic editors and reviewers marked in yellow. Below are our responses to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewers.

Best regards!

Tadesse Asmamaw Dejenie, on behave of all authors

Response to academic editor’s comment

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

Author response: Thank you so much for sending the link to the PLOS ONE style templates; we have taken your advice and updated our manuscript to meet the style requirements of PLOS ONE. Please double-check it in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

Author response: We'd like to thank you for your input. We've taken your advice and thoroughly reread our amended manuscript. Please see the revised manuscript for further information.

Comment 3: We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Author response: We'd want to thank you one more for alerting us. Please correct, as the datasets used in this work are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Response to Reviewers’ comment

Reviewer #1: I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.

Authors should consider the following recommendations:

- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.

- I would recommend highlighting clearly other conditions that may cause adverse obstetric outcomes, including neonatal asphyxia, such as advanced maternal age (PMID: 25027820), pre-eclampsia (PMID: 26512423; PMID: 32283429) and obstructed labor (PMID: 31823037; PMID: 32307556 ).

Author response: We are really grateful for your suggestions. We have acknowledged and adjusted your helpful suggestions. Tables 3 and 4 of the revised manuscript address some of your issues. For further information, please kindly check the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Comment 1: The article has some inconsistencies. The most evident are:

- In the abstract you say " The diagnosis of birth asphyxia was confirmed based on the physician’s diagnosis of an APGAR score < 7 in the 1st and 5th minutes of birth". IN the text you say "The diagnosis of birth asphyxia was made based on the fifth-minute APGAR scores of < 7 ". Please correct

Author response: We'd like to express our gratitude for your insightful remarks and suggestions. We've taken note of the suggestions and made the necessary revisions.

Comment 2: Regarding the antepartal visits, you reported in the text that 59.1% of patients had 4 or more visits, while in the table they are 54.09%

Author response: We appreciate your thoughtful and helpful remarks once again. We are perplexed as to why this issue has arisen. This is most likely due to a technical glitch. In any case, we took your suggestions and made the necessary changes.

Comment 3: Married women are 325 (91.1%) in the text and 32 (8.9%) in the table

I recommend reviewing all correspondences between text and tables.

In table 4 you wrote about "Neonatal medical problem at birth" that 286 babies had no problems, 41 sepsis, 19 birth injury and 11 congenital malformation. It is not clear where the 97 cases of childbirth asphyxia fit in.

Author response: We value your critical opinion. In fact, when we assessed the neonatal medical condition at birth, we did not consider neonatal asphyxia; instead, we assessed medical problems other than asphyxia.

Comment 4: In lines 192-193 you divide fetal asphyxia into moderate and severe but it is not defined by what criteria this subdivision is carried out.

Author response: Fetal asphyxia was classified using the Standard Treatment Protocol for Management of Common Newborn Conditions in Small Hospitals, which is based on WHO Guidelines.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.rtf
Decision Letter - Francesca Crovetto, Editor

The magnitude of neonatal asphyxia and its associated factors among newborns in public hospitals of North Gondar Zone, Northwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-24852R1

Dear Dr. Tadesse Asmamaw, 

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,

Francesca Crovetto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Francesca Crovetto, Editor

PONE-D-21-24852R1

The magnitude of neonatal asphyxia and its associated factors among newborns in public hospitals of North Gondar Zone, Northwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Dejenie:

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. Francesca Crovetto

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 .