Peer Review History
Original SubmissionNovember 1, 2022 |
---|
PONE-D-22-30048Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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 Feb 09 2023 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:
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, Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH 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 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. Furthermore, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB. 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. [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: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ********** 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 study “Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study” describes the factors associated with administration of the third dose of pentavalent vaccine (Penta3) among children aged 12–23 months in Afghanistan, based on 2018 Afghanistan Health Survey data. The number of eligible children was 3,040 corresponding 19,684 households who had a child aged 12-23 months, the information was obtained from child mothers or a legal tutor. The coverage of Penta3 among 12–23-month-old children was 82.3%. Important determinants were identified associated with Penta3 administration such as age, having no diarrhea in the last two weeks, no bipedal edema, taking vitamin A supplement, household members, distance from residence to the nearest health facility, having a radio, having a TV, having education of heads of households, non-smoking of heads of households, age of mothers/primary care givers, and literacy of mothers/primary caregivers. The findings reported in this manuscript fit the aims and scope of the journal; however, it does not present novel findings as the previous analysis was performed using the Afghanistan Health Survey 2012/2015 and the factors and findings do not differ too much. The authors should show the relevance of the continuous analysis of the surveys in order to monitor the determinants. I suggest major revision and clarifications for specific points. Introduction and methods What is the difference between administration and coverage? Please provide the definition of vaccine coverage in your introduction. Just to reinforce, it’s a suggestion: Please provide information about the EPI centers, their establishment and operations, if vaccine administration is provided free of charge by the state. UNICEF/WHO target of immunization is not mentioned in the manuscript, add it please. L65-66: suggestion change (ages 1-4) by (under five years). L67: please use updated information if available, 2015 to today many things happened. L78-80: Please provide the national vaccination coverage estimate. If possible, show how it improved from 2015 to 2018 and wish regions of Afghanistan present the lowest coverage. L80-83: suggestion: The factors associated with non- and under-vaccination of children in Afghanistan were reported to be socio-demographic and childhood factors, lack of urbanization, access to health facilities, and household factors including maternal and paternal education. L83-85: The justification can be improved, data regarding vaccination coverage using community data are available in Afghanistan, it would be important to provide a strong justification and show which gap your study will fill. L84: you have Penta3 administration, however, in L86 coverage, please standardize. Materials and methods For better visualization please provide a map that locates it on the continent, as well as the division by provinces. The time of data collection is not mentioned by the authors the survey took a years or a couple of months? How did they collect it? by visiting individual home? What was the response rate of the participating mothers? method section lacks this information. L91-92: Change by Cross-sectional study, conducted by the MoPH…………… L98-99: please make it clear L116-L118: Suggestion: The characteristics of the 12–23-month-old children, their households, characteristics of their household-heads and mothers/caregivers were taken from the AHS database. L124-125: In Afghanistan, the Vitamin A administration is made only in National campaigns and not as a routine immunization in Health Center? And this information usually goes to child health cards, why this information was only obtained through interviews. Please check L296 L133: please check if is “number of total eligible women” or “number of total eligible children”. L153-162 and 163-170 check if the information is not overlapped, what is the difference between these two paragraphs and why they are important? L173 there is no information about the descriptive analysis, please add. L187: something is missing after the comma 190: please remove the word “old” 191: Please check the percentage of children without vaccination card, because in line 191 you have 11.2%, while in the limitation section 12.0%, please revise. Results i. General observation: how did you conduct the descriptive analysis on the tables? I was expected to see each one of the values divided by the sample size, not by its own “n”. For example, in table 1, I was expected to see diarrhea variable 68.4% for “no” and “31.6%” for yes, which reflects the estimates that you have in the country survey. This is just an observation the authors can think and discuss about it. 191-196: I think it deserves a subtitle maybe “Vaccination coverage” and concentrate all the information regarding the vaccine coverage. Discussion General Make a comparative assessment of vaccination coverage in Afghanistan and other countries in the region. ********** 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 ********** [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 |
PONE-D-22-30048R1Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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 Jun 30 2023 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:
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, Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH Academic 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. Additional Editor Comments: This is an important manuscript documenting 1) the level of the third dose of the pentavalent vaccine in Afghanistan, and 2) potential factors. Thank you for responding to the reviewers' questions. There still remain some shortcomings to resolve: 1. Please make subdivisions on the abstract as one reviewer points out. 2. Line 68 there is one citation pointing to the World Bank as the source of child mortality estimates. This is incorrect. Please a UN IGME reference for this. 3. About the methods: - About the AHS 2008 sampling. With the current description, it seems that there is province stratification. How about urban/rural? - Line 113/114: the last sentence is a repetition of a sentence in 110/112. Please, revise. - There were 3 provinces that did not reach the desired sample size. What was done for these provinces at the analysis level? - What languages were used to talk to the mothers? Were the data collectors trained for this? - In a household with more than 1 child eligible to enter the sample what was done? This is an important detail to describe. - Did the analysis use survey weights or not? This seems to be ignored in the whole analysis. - Line 180: The categorization of age obeys quantiles of age. What this means quartiles, quintiles? The below age 29 may include families led by someone under-18 or under-21. This may matter at least for description. - About the "ethical issues". This report is a result of a secondary data analysis of AHS 2018, correct? If yes, clarify that the ethical approval you got was to access the data not to conduct the data collection. 4. Results: - Please do not use only p-values on table 1 through table 3 (it would be fine to remove these p-values). In fact, many of these p-values are repeated in the unadjusted analysis of table 4. For tables 1 to 3 do: 1) make the percentages to be by column; 2) add a column for coverage and its 95% confidence interval. - Table 4 - there is nowhere in the manuscript explaining how the factors were chosen. Is this based on the literature? Please state so. Why not adjust by province? [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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ********** 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 Reviewer #3: 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: Thanks for allowing me to review this manuscript. Over all the manuscript is well written but I have some concerns and suggestions as stated below. 1. Title: The title is good but why you prefer only coverage of PCV3 vaccine coverage? Why you ignore PCV1, PCV2….??? 2. Your source of data is not clear; is it primary data from face to face interview or secondary data from previous records??? Be consistent and revise it throughout the document. If you say it was secondary data how do you get consent from participants? 3. The variables like diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement, smoking of heads of households,… are irrelevant and clinically insignificant variables for vaccine coverage so why you include this factors on multivariable regression? Because inclusion of such irrelevant variables in the analysis might confound the effect of other variables. 4. Variables of the study should better to be summarized under one or two paragraphs and operational definitions should be stated in separate section. 5. How do you check multicollinarity? Better to incorporate it in the manuscript. 6. Almost all tables are mere repetitions of text descriptions, better to avoid redundancy by choosing either of the two. 7. Variables such as; diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement and smoking of heads of households are not strongly justified for its association with vaccine coverage in the discussion section. revise it again Reviewer #3: Thank you for the invitation to review this paper. This paper worth publishing. However, it has some shortcoming from abstract to reference. The abstract section lacks sub heading. The abstract section is lengthy. The introduction section is also too long. It should address the tried effort to decrease the burden of the problem your country, current intervention, and any future directions. Furthermore, you should give a strong gap. Your gap is not convincing. In the method section, you merged method sub-sections. You need to separate and present in clear way. Data collection method, sampling procedure, Tool. There are a lot of repetitive ideas. E.g. the study period is presented in page 3 line number 103, 115.... Is your tool valid and reliable? Is it developed by the authors or adopted? Check the whole document for typo errors. Be consistent with use of grammars. Statistical analyses vs statistical analysis? In the result section: you need to avoid repetition of data already stated in the table. Make it short and precise. Strong recommendation: The result section should be written in short and precise way. Have you checked the model assumptions? if so report the findings. In the discussion section: please check the typing errors. You need to discuss the implication of the finding. The declaration section seems incomplete. ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: 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 |
PONE-D-22-30048R2Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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 Jul 24 2023 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:
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, Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): This is the 3rd revision of this manuscript. The authors responded partially to the questions raised by the reviewer and the academic editor. At times presented unsatisfactory excuses for not taking the suggestions to improve the manuscript. I. Particularly this question: - Please do not use only p-values on table 1 through table 3 (it would be fine to remove these p-values). In fact, many of these p-values are repeated in the unadjusted analysis of table 4. For tables 1 to 3 do: 1) make the percentages to be by column; 2) add a column for coverage and its 95% confidence interval. The authors state that it is a matter of style. This is a serious misconception. This is a succinct presentation of the current results in this manuscript. The reader would benefit if the row percentages was presented as coverage [the column I am suggesting to add]; and the characteristics were presented in column percentages. The p-values have no role here. II. Also, pay attention to reviewer 3 in the last revision comments (as per his/hers recommendation). Particularly, please, respond fully to the following questions: • The question about model assumption was not fully responded to. At least please state how did you check model fit which is closer to model assumptions check requested by the reviewer. Yes, checking multicollinearity is important but it is not enough. • Change the term multivariate to multivariable [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 #3: (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 #3: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Dear authors thank you for your effort in addressing the previous comments. However, all of my comments not addressed satisfactorily. ********** 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 #3: 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 3 |
Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study PONE-D-22-30048R3 Dear Dr. Yamamoto, 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, Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: All of my comments are well addressed. Now, the article is suitable for publication after careful gramer edition and proof reading. ********** 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 #3: No ********** |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-22-30048R3 Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Yamamoto: 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. Orvalho Augusto 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 .