PONE-D-21-39580Feeding practices and nutritional status among children aged 6–23 months in Indonesia: the analysis of the results of the 2018 Basic Health ResearchPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Samosir,

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 8 October,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,

Resham B Khatri, PhD

Guest 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 stating in your Funding Statement:

“This research was supported by the Government of Indonesia, which provided for funding for this research project through the Ministry of Research and Technology/National Research and Innovation Board Fiscal Year 2021 (No.: NKB-006/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2021) This research was supported by the Government of Indonesia, which provided for funding for this research project through the Ministry of Research and Technology/National Research and Innovation Board Fiscal Year 2021 (No.: NKB-006/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2021)”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

[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: 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

**********

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 manuscript describes findings from a logistic regression study in Indonesia which highlights the association between feeding practices and nutritional status among children in Indonesia. Overall, this is good manuscript that can contribute to the global child health literature. However, some

aspects of the manuscript need to be addressed to strengthen the paper and consider it for

publication, including:

1. Abstract: it is suggested that statistic data (OR, 95%CI, or p-value) should be added to the logistic finding.

2. Introduction and literature review should be compiled and shortened.

3. Please add the average age of the sample

4. Line 343: ‘is’ needs to be replaced by ‘are’

5. Line 358: ‘is to have’ is better changed with ‘has’

6. Line 410-415: statements does not support impact of living in rural and urban area as NTT and NTB cannot define as rural or urban are. Statement needs revision and more supporting literature.

7. Limitation of the study is not written.

8. Line 450: study aim is not necessarily shown up in the conclusion.

9. The conclusion is too long. Suggestion: make it shorter

10. Good recommendation, although lack of suggestion of future research.

Reviewer #2: I am happy to review this paper. The paper titled Feeding practices and nutritional status among children aged 6–23 months in Indonesia: the analysis of the results of the 2018 Basic Health Research is a good attempt to examine the association between feeding practices and nutritional status among child aged 6-23 months in Indonesia. The authors have chosen important research topic of Feeding practices and nutritional status among children aged 6–23 months in Indonesia. However, there are several serious issues with this paper. The introduction is poorly written and research gap is not well documented. The introduction section is too much lengthy and repetitive. Most of the sentences in the introduction part is unclear and redundant. I am concerned about objective; the study objective is not consistent in abstract and introduction section. Also, though the title of the study is Feeding practices and nutritional status among children aged 6–23 months but the authors have only taken food diversity as part of the feeding practices so I think the title of the study may require some revision; food diversity and nutritious status rather than feeding practices and nutrition status.

Massive work is required in the introduction section to make it succinct and ensure coherence. The author has added literature review part in separate heading under introduction, but I think it is not needed separately rather some important points can be combined in the intro part and rest can be omitted. Also, a clear justification is required in the introduction section, to justify how this paper adds value. In result section, the interpretation of the finding is too much lengthy and inappropriate, I strongly suggest author to take reference of other PLoS one paper to write the interpretation in an appropriate way. The discussion section needs to be revised ensure proper and consistent flow. The authors have not discussed about the strengths and limitation of their study. Also, the manuscript needs massive English edits and reduce errors.

This manuscript requires serious formatting work to make as per journal requirement. I strongly suggest authors to seriously review the journal guideline and revise it accordingly. The conclusion and recommendation should be based on the findings.

Abstract:

The author has explained the result part only in the narrative form and it doesn’t contain any data so adding some key value of Odds would improve the paper. Similarly, in the abstract, the conclusion part is very vague and so suggested to revise it based on your findings.

Introduction part:

In the abstract author said the objective of the study was to investigate the association between feeding practices and nutrition status of children and in the introduction section; author has mentioned the objective of this study was to investigate the association between the food consumption diversity and nutritional status of children.

I am concerned about the objective of the study, whether authors assess overall feeding practices and nutrition status or only food diversity and nutrition status. Please make it consistent. Also, if you are primarily interested to assess food diversity and nutrition status then you are suggested to revise your research title accordingly.

The introduction section is too much lengthy and repetitive. Most of the sentences in the introduction part is unclear and redundant. I noticed the author has mentioned one figure in the introduction part I suggested to remove figure from the intro part.

I am concerned why author has added so much long literature review part under separate heading in the introduction section, rather some important points can be combined in the intro part and rest can be omitted to make intro part succinct. The massive work is required in the introduction part and The English editing is highly required.

Methods

The author has not discussed about study design and sampling methods, they have not clearly described how they categorized sociodemographic variables in the method section. There are several grammatic errors in the sentence construction in the methodology part. Authors are suggested to add, how did they ensure quality control during overall study.

Result

The interpretation of the tables is not appropriate, please refer the similar PLoS publications to get an idea to describe the findings in the paper. Along with the narrative, the value of the key findings should be mentioned so that reader can relate value with the narrative, and it makes sense to the readers. Also, the interpretation of the table is too much lengthy. In fact, you do not need to interpret whole things from the table rather you can explain some key observations and rest reader can refer to the table. So, I strongly suggest author to revise your interpretation of the tables in the result section and make it more succinct and appropriate.

Discussion and conclusion:

The discussion section needs to be revised ensure proper and consistent flow. The authors have not discussed about strengths and limitation of the study. The conclusion section is very vague and not specific to the overall study findings. The discussion and conclusion section need to be revised based on how the authors would address my comments.

**********

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: Yes: Dyah Juliastuti

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.

PONE-D-21-39580R1Food consumption diversity and nutritional status among children aged 6–23 months in Indonesia: the analysis of the results of the 2018 Basic Health ResearchPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Samosir,

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 31 December 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,

Resham B Khatri, PhD

Guest 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.

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this interesting article. According to my previous review, the author has already revised the article per suggested, which I appreciate. My only concern is that in the ethics statement, the author indicated as if he is the one who conduct the data collection which is not congruent with the statement in line 146 which shows that the author used secondary data from the basic health research. It is suggested that the reference of the ethics process is added, and permit to use the Riskesdas data is mentioned.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors, thank you so much for addressing all of my comments. The manuscript has improved now.

The introduction is concise and methodology section is well-explained.

The results are arranged systematically and coherently narrated and conclusion aligns with the findings.

However, I have a few suggestions that may further improve manuscript.

I think thorough editing of the english langauge would enhance the manuscript and minimize grammatical and sentence erros.

I noticed that authors used the present tense where it should have been be past; for instances; line no. 35, 66-67, 87, 100-please change these sentence to the past tense.

In line no. 64-65 reference is missing “ In the Southeast Asia region, the prevalence of stunting was the second highest 65 in Indonesia after Timor-Leste”[....Ref..]

Please check the references again to make sure they adhere to journal standards.

The manuscript requires some formatting work.

Thank you

**********

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: Dipendra Singh Thakuri

**********

[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.

Food consumption diversity and nutritional status among children aged 6–23 months in Indonesia: the analysis of the results of the 2018 Basic Health Research

PONE-D-21-39580R2

Dear Dr. Samosir,

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,

Resham B Khatri, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: