https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3692-2296
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 8, 2023 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-23-22204Why mothers continue to die in Pakistan: a nested case-control study of predictors of maternal mortalityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, 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 Apr 18 2024 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, Abera Mersha, MSc. 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [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: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: Yes 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: 1. The study presents the results of original research. I am wondering this manuscript. I found publish in the medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293928; this version posted August 15, 2023. 2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere. I am wondering this manuscript. I found publish in the medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293928; this version posted August 15, 2023. 3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. No comment 4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. No comment 5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. Yes it is “The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English” 6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The ethics of experimentation and research integrity issue did not show in manuscript. If the project used the secondary data, IRB should be explained about exempt. 7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. No comment Reviewer #2: Why Mothers Continue To Die In Pakistan: A Nested Case-Control Study Of Predictors Of Maternal Mortality Summary of the Research Maternal mortality ratio (MMR) declined in Pakistan from 276 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006-07 to 186 in 2019. Despite this decline, reasons why mothers continue to die, the inequity in the burden of maternal mortality and its predictors largely remain unknown. The in-depth analysis of Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey 2019 was undertaken using the nested case-control design. Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider, but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and ever using a contraceptive method. More of the cases had their last delivery by a skilled birth attendant (83% compared to 63% among controls) and delivered at the government hospital (43% compared to 33% among controls) while home delivery was relatively more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest for women giving birth during age 20-29 (odds ratio – OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23-1.07) as compared to women in age 15-19 and those age 30-39 (OR: 1.34; 95% CI 0.61-2.95) and 40-49 (OR: 1.21; 95% CI 0.42-3.45), and among women with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.74) compared to women with no education. Women in certain sub-groups confront higher risks of maternal death. Increasing female education, preventing early and late childbearing through contraceptive use, increasing tetanus vaccination during pregnancy, improving providers’ skills, and quality of health care are required to eliminate preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan. Areas for improvement Title: Tile is concise and good well expressing and reflecting the content of the study. Abstract: The abstract is well written, however, the authors should revise the language to improve readability. The authors should make sure that the abstract don’t exceed 300 words. Introduction: The authors should write details in introduction section to tell the reader about the general information about the phenomena under study. The authors should mention the significant of the study and identify the gap in knowledge as well. The authors should revise introduction section for grammar issues and language to improve readability. The authors should clear identify the variables of the study. The authors should explain theoretical framework of the study. The authors should mention the significance of the study. The authors should make this section more clear, so readers will understand what message you wanted them to understand. Overall Good and brief introduction section. Material and Methods: Clear section but The authors should revise the language to improve readability. The authors should mention why they selected the design of the study clearly. The authors should briefly explain what is PMMS and provide the full for of this abbreviation. From where they got this questionnaire. The authors should mention about verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, is it different from PMMS questionnaire. The authors should mention about other ethical consideration for data control. The authors should briefly explain about Stata version 14. I am not sure if there are specific criteria to include the participants, mention that please! Results, discussion and conclusion: Clear results, discussion and conclusion sections. But improve grammar and language for readability. References: The authors should revise all references according to the guidelines provided. Make sure that all intext referencing reflecting with in the references list. Reviewer #3: Well done for the reviewers in working with two databases to address an important global health problems. However, there are still some areas that need major revisions. Please see comments below: Title: I feel like the title is too broad, at first sight I though this paper included demographic, social, economic, cultural factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. I suggest using something more succinct like, "Demographic, Social and Clinical Factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case control study" Abstract: The abstract needs a lot of work, see couple suggestions below; Background: In Parkistan, there has been a decline of maternal mortality by x% between 2006-2019. However, the MMR remains relatively high at xxxxx. This study aims to assess factors associated with MMR in Pakistan. Methods: We used data from PMMS 2019. We employed a nested case control design. Cases were defined as.......Controls were defined as. We performed a multivariate regression with the following independent variable. The dependent variable is maternal mortality. Results: Results are currently overwhelming. consider picking 2-3 from table one. And presenting odds rations for statistically significant predictors and surprising findings. Introduction: First paragraph could be more succinct and shorter focusing mostly on Pakistan. Currently too wordy. Second paragraph needs to be elaborated more. We need more information on the conceptual framework(what informed it? any established theories, key associations from the prior studies mentioned in the past? Do you have a DAG? Rationale and objective of this study needs to be clearly linked. Figure 1 is nice clear diagram Methods: Methods section looks generally good. However see comments in abstract. Did you perform a multistage cluster design or you performed a secondary data analysis from the survey using a nested control study design? is there room for Flexibility in a statistical analysis plan. Won't this introduce Bias (line 111-114) Figure 2: I am not an expert in matching cases and controls so I stand to be corrected. What is the rationale of matching cases and controls by clusters? What is the matching ratio 1 case to 5 controls or 1 case to 4 controls. What exactly is happening here? And is it statistically correct? Results: Improve structure and clarity in results section. Try to use sub-titles. See also comments in abstract. Read how other articles presents such data. Discussion: Consider formatting it in this way. 1. Key findings, " We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that xxxxxxxxx 2. Similarities or lack of with existing literature on the topic 3. Limitations 4. Recommendations ********** 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: Yes: Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi 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 1 |
|
PONE-D-23-22204R1Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, 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 31 2024 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, Abera Mersha, MSc. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 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: Well done team, all the best. The authors addressed all changes No more comments for them. I wish them all the best Reviewer #3: Abstract This conclusion is off – how do you make such a conclusion from these results that are only looking at association and not causality? I would suggest_ “Conclusion: This study provides factors associated with maternal mortality. Further investigation is needed on the determinants positively associated with high mortality rates.” There is a limitation on what you can say when assessing causality or maybe you can argue that maternal deaths are rare and hence odds ratio = relative risk ratio, read up on it. Introduction Improved – However I would remove sections that speaks about the methodology in the introduction There is a specific section for methodology Methodology Please follow the following format for clarity: Design: Case-control design of PMMS and Surveys with Maternal Mortality data (Include years) Setting and Population Data Collection Study Variable – including Primary Outcome Type of analysis and Software Ethical Considerations Figure 2: Scheme of cases an 132 d controls identification and matching is a great diagram, give the explanation you gave on the rationale of different matching ratios Results “Multi-stage analyses included the phases of descriptive analysis and inferential analyses by applying 173 univariate and multivariate regression techniques. The proportional representation of cases versus controls 174 was similar for the matching variables of region/province of residence and place of residence (i.e. urban vs 175 rural).” - Belongs in the methodology section. Begin like – Table shows the Number and percentage distribution (%) of cases and controls by background variables, Pakistan, 2019………… Discussion The discussion needs restructuring. We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that We Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and contraceptive usage. A higher proportion of cases had deliveries by skilled birth attendants (83% compared to 63% among controls) while home deliveries were more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest among women aged 20-29 years (odds ratio – OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23-1.07) and those with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.74). Surprisingly, deliveries attended by skilled birth attendants were associated with higher odds of maternal death (OR: 4.07; 95% CI 2.19-7.57) compared to those who were not. Second paragraph should speak of similarities or lack of with existing literature on the topic Third paragraph should speak of of limitations which you already have. Fourth paragraph should speak of Recommendations (please see comments in abstract. ********** 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: Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi 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-23-22204R2Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, 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. ============================== Thank you for addressing the initial comments provided by the reviewers. Based on the revised manuscript, the reviewers have requested that some minor comments still need to be addressed. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2024 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, Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai 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. [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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (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 #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #4: 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: All Comments had been addressed. All the best Reviewer #4: Dear Authors, It is good Job. The study used nested case-control design with robust statistical analysis to better understand maternal mortality in Pakistan. I have some comments that can improve your work. - what does your "main findings mean" merely should be stated in abstract section of the conclusion. - The study shows sigificant association between SBAs and high MMR. Could this works for causality too? or How can the authors address limitations of drawing conclusions on the causality? - Why pakistan still have high number of MMR despite considerable improvements. - I see some of the section of the references are not full. Please re consider it ********** 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: Dr. Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi Reviewer #4: Yes: Eskinder Israel ********** [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 |
|
Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control study PONE-D-23-22204R3 Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for submitting this important manuscript to PLOS ONE Journal. I wish you great success in your continued efforts to improve care for women in Pakistan. 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 #4: 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 #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: Dear Authors, Thank you very much for your good work and I wish you all the best in your future life carrier. ********** 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 #4: Yes: Eskinder Israel ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-22204R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai 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 .