Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 25, 2021
Decision Letter - Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Editor

PONE-D-21-34084Prevalence of Timely Complementary Feeding Initiation and Associated Factors among Mothers Having Children Aged 6-24 Months in Rural North-central Ethiopia: Community based Cros-sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ABATE,

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 note that further language improvement is highly indicated in the manuscript to be considered as a sound one. Consider revising the spelling, grammar, diction, and syntax throughout the manuscript for increased clarity to meet the standards for PLOS one publication. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2022 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: 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,

Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Ph.D (MD)

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. 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.

5. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: The whole manuscript is based on a community-based cross-sectional study to discuss the prevalence of complementary feeding initiation and associated factors

among mothers having children aged 6-24 Months in rural north-central Ethiopia. The investigation focus on the mother's situation, such as mother’s career, spouse career, mother's age, work environment, birth intervals.

Major critique:

1) Authors claimed that it needs great effort to disseminate information regarding the importance of timely initiation of complementary feeding to overcome child malnutrition. But there have been prospective studies on related topics, which may put this article in a insufficient innovation position, such as Complementary Feeding Habits in Children Under the Age of 2 YearsLiving in the City of Adama in theOromia Region in Central Ethiopia:Traditional Ethiopian Food Study, 2021.

Other points

2) To explore the prevalence, it would be helpful to discuss th status of children's growth and some specific diseases in the study, such as wasting, stunting, underweight, and low body mass index.

3) The specific food of complementary feeding may add into the study, Including but not limited to vegetables, cereals (teff, wheat, barley), and fruits.

4) The discussion focus comparison between this study and the others’ work, but lack for explaining the innovation and advantage, or their own defects.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

Thanks for the efforts that has been made to accomplish this work. The topic is interesting, however, the selected test is not appropriate to report such results. I would highly suggest asking for consultation to re do the test especially for the factor analysis section. Grammatical check is needed as well and you need to remove some parts or re write it such as dependent and independent variables, operational definition etc.

Reviewer #3: The data analysis is incomplete and can be expanded further. There is lack of novelty in the study and researchers should try to explore more variables which may have a relation with the timely initiation of complementary feeding. The overall language needs editing. The flow is not maintained.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Nishtha Kathuria

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-34084.docx
Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-21-34084

Prevalence of Timely Complementary Feeding Initiation and Associated Factors among Mothers Having Children Aged 6-24 Months in Rural North-central Ethiopia: Community based Cros-sectional Study

Dear Dr. Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Ph.D (MD)

Thank you very much for your ongoing consideration of our manuscript (PONE-D-21-34084) for publication in PLOS ONE. We have revised the manuscript to reflect your (editor) comments and those of the reviewers, and our point-by-point responses are shown on the next few pages. We appreciate the time spent by you and the reviewers, and hope you agree that the revised manuscript is both improved and now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Moges Wubneh Abate

Email:wmoges7@gmail.com

Editor comments

1. Background: The timely initiation of complementary foods during infancy is necessary for growth and development. In the past years, despite efforts put to increase timely initiation of complementary feeding among lactating mothers in Ethiopia by different stakeholders, the goal is not attain as expected----not clear

Authors’ response

Thank you dear editor for your insight and we have amended this section. It now reads:

Background: Complementary foods are defined as any solid or liquid foods with a nutritional value other than breast milk offered to children. Timely initiation of complementary foods during infancy is necessary for growth and development. The first two years of life are important period for rapid physical, cognitive and social development that requires optimal nutrition.

2. Introduction needs overall improvement and language editing

Authors’ response

Thank you dear editor for your insight and we have amended this section. It now reads in page4 (paragraph1; line2-10, paragraph 2; line1-4, paragraph3; line1-4 and paragraph4; line2-5).

3. It would be good to depict the relation between mothers reproductive history and health service utilization with initiation of complementary food.

Authors’ response

Dear editor we accepted your comment, but the authors try to showed the assosation between some of reproductive history like partiy and health service utilizations like ANC, PNC history with initiation of complementary feeding even if; some of these variables had not significant association with timely initiation of complementary feeding.

Reviewer #1: The whole manuscript is based on a community-based cross-sectional study to discuss the prevalence of complementary feeding initiation and associated factors among mothers having children aged 6-24 Months in rural north-central Ethiopia. The investigation focus on the mother's situation, such as mother’s career, spouse career, mother's age, work environment, birth intervals.

Major critique:

1) Authors claimed that it needs great effort to disseminate information regarding the importance of timely initiation of complementary feeding to overcome child malnutrition. But there have been prospective studies on related topics, which may put this article in a insufficient innovation position, such as Complementary Feeding Habits in Children Under the Age of 2 Years Living in the City of Adama in theOromia Region in Central Ethiopia: Traditional Ethiopian Food Study, 2021.

Other points

2) To explore the prevalence, it would be helpful to discuss th status of children's growth and some specific diseases in the study, such as wasting, stunting, underweight, and low body mass index.

3) The specific food of complementary feeding may add into the study, Including but not limited to vegetables, cereals (teff, wheat, barley), and fruits.

4) The discussion focus comparison between this study and the others’ work, but lack for explaining the innovation and advantage, or their own defects.

Authors’ response for Reviewer #1

Authors’ response: 1.

Dear reviewer, thank you for your insight but the objective of the study done in Adama city was focused on food habits or nutritional status of the children were assessed at the same time where as, our study is focused on howmany of mothers were initiated complementary feeding at 6 months

Authors’ response: 2

Dear reviewer thank you for your suggestions but the objective of this study was timely initiations of complementary feeding, not the nutritional status of the children. There are studies done specfically to address nutritional status among children. Example: Undernutrition and associated factors among urban children aged 24–59 months in Northwest Ethiopia: a community based cross sectional study

Authors’ response: 3

Thank you dear reviewer for constructive comment but this study was mainly focused does mothers in rural community initiated timely complementary feeding irrespective of food diversity. And also the authors set reccommendation for other researchers in discussion section to include food items page 15; paragraph 5, line 5-7.

Authors’ response: 4

Thank you dear reviewer for constructive comments and the authors corrected the comments. Now reads it on page 15; paragraph 5, line 1-7.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

Thanks for the efforts that has been made to accomplish this work. The topic is interesting; however, the selected test is not appropriate to report such results. I would highly suggest asking for consultation to re do the test especially for the factor analysis section. Grammatical check is needed as well and you need to remove some parts or re write it such as dependent and independent variables, operational definition etc.

Authors’ response for Reviewer #2

Authors’ response

Dear reviewer thank you for your kind words sothat, based on your suggestion we were ask consultation to different researchers. So based on the resarchers recommendation for this study is pereferable to be binary logistic regression test. Grammar errors were checked and corrected accordingly through out the entire manuscripts based on your recommendation. We re-write and amended in dependent and independent variables, operational definition based on reviewer recommandations. Now read it on page 5 and 6 in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The data analysis is incomplete and can be expanded further. There is lack of novelty in the study and researchers should try to explore more variables which may have a relation with the timely initiation of complementary feeding. The overall language needs editing. The flow is not maintained.

Authors’ response for Reviewer #3

Authors’ response

Dear reviewer thank you for your comment the objective of this study is mainly focused on howmany of mothers in this rural community of Ethiopia were initiated complementary feeding. Eventhough, there are unexplored variables present in this study; the authors believed that the tested variables are adequate. We have also set recommendation for other researchers to conducting study in this area or tittle in last paragraph of discussion section. The language or grammar errors were corrected as per recommendations of the reviewer in the entire section of the manuscript. We have made amendement on the manuscript flow in the entire section based on your recommendation.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Editor

Prevalence of Timely Complementary Feeding Initiation and Associated Factors among Mothers Having Children Aged 6-24 Months in Rural North-central Ethiopia: Community based Cros-sectional Study

PONE-D-21-34084R1

Dear Dr. ABATE,

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,

Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Ph.D (MD)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

A great effort was made by the authors to utilize the feedback that was provided for them to correct for resubmission

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Dear Authors

Thanks for considering all comments.

This version is much better than previous one.

I wish you the good luck in your submission this time.

If you need any further clarification please do contact me

Cheers

**********

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 #2: Yes: Manal I. Kassab

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Editor

PONE-D-21-34084R1

Prevalence of Timely Complementary Feeding Initiation and Associated Factors among Mothers Having Children Aged 6-24 Months in Rural North-central Ethiopia: Community based Cros-sectional Study

Dear Dr. Abate:

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

Professor Ammal Mokhtar Metwally

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 .