Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 13, 2023
Decision Letter - Gizachew Gobebo Mekebo, Editor

PONE-D-23-00874Spatial variation and determinants of age-appropriate vaccination practice in Ethiopia using EDHS 2016 data: A multilevel and spatial analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. chanie,

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 08 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:

  • 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,

Gizachew Gobebo Mekebo, Assistant Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"no specific funding for this work"

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. 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.

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

6. We note that Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. 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:

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two reviewers. Based on the review reports, and my own assessment as Editor, I am pleased to inform you that it has a potential to be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE, once you have significantly carried out revisions suggested by the reviewers. Therefore, we invite you to significantly revise the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: The authors tried to assess the spatial variation and determinants of age-appropriate vaccination practice in Ethiopia using EDHS 2016 data. Then they concluded as the spatial distribution of age-appropriate vaccination practice in Ethiopia was non-randomly distributed across the regions. Age-appropriate vaccination practice was low in Ethiopia. Wealth index, usual caretaker of the child, ANC utilization, history of TT vaccination, place of delivery, and residence were associated with age-appropriate vaccination practice. The idea of good.

• The manuscript needs to take an editorial revision to tackle minor grammar issues.

• I suggest that the authors consider more updated references to the introduction subsection.

• To clearly indicate and just the existence of the spatial variation, it is also highly important if some spatial tests are taken into account. With these comments, I recommend that the article be published.

• I don’t see the effects of age when dealing the spatial issues. What is the relevance of considering age as one of the explanatory variables in dealing with spatial analysis?

• I also suggest the authors to highlight and explain the issue of spatial dependency in the methodology subsection.

Regards

Habte Tadesse, PhD

Department of statistics, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

Reviewer #2: Comments to author(s)

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-00874

Title: Spatial variation and determinants of age-appropriate vaccination practice in Ethiopia using EDHS 2016 data: A multilevel and spatial analysis

I appreciate the authors for their effort to conduct this study. The manuscript reports findings based on the objective of the study. The overall organization of the manuscript is also good. But, there are some concerns that need corrections. The comments are listed below, review and amend them.

Introduction

Some of your references cited in the introduction part has no relation to your document.

Citation #1 talks about “The impact of the vaccination program for hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in Hu County, China”, remove this citation and replace it with appropriate citation.

Citation #2 briefs about influenza vaccine not about period of vaccine administration. Revise and replace with the appropriate citations.

Citation #3 is not the finding of the research you cited. Rather, you used from cross reference. So, replace it with appropriate source,

Page 3, line 58-59; revise the sentence. Next to citation 6, please add the program of vaccination based on WHO recommendation.

Page 4, line 71; write full words on their first appearance, VPDs.

Page 4, line 76; the citation used for Toke kutaye reference number 18 is not correct. The reference listed on number 18 is Xiao X, Wu Z-C, Chou K-C , 2011.

Methods

Page 4, line 84-85; the population of Ethiopia is 114,963,588, include your reference

Page 4, line 89-90; what is the need of this statement “the Ethiopian demographic health survey of 2016 revealed that among ten children aged 12-23, four children (39%) received all the basic vaccines (19).:”?

Page 6, line 119; table 1, there is no table clearly showing table 1 since table cations are 1 for all.

Results

Page 7, line 144, line 149, and page 9 line 200; you cited table 2,3, and 4, but not appropriately used the captions.

Page 8, line 162; figure 4 is not available in lists of tables or has no caption.

Pages 7- 8, line 158-162; why you included about anemia? Remove it.

Discussion

At the end of your discussion add strength and limitation of your study.

Conclusion

Actually, you have no variable that shows lack of transportation fees. So, you could not give the following recommendation since it is not a part of your findings. So remove it. “provide outreach vaccination for those are difficulty accessing the vaccine because of lack of transport fees could bring a significant contribution to improving age appropriate vaccination practice by health care workers.”

Page 12, line 264-266; move the strength and limitation to discussion part.

References

References 1-3 are not related with your citation, so change and update them.

Reference number 19 is not fully written. Revise it.

Tables

There are 4 tables listed in the manuscript. But the caption of each table is not correct. All tables are labeled as “table 1”, revise and correct them.

Sociodemographic table, under variable region, change Somalia to Somali.

Figures

Out of the 7 figures listed in in this manuscript, one figure has no caption. Revise it.

********** 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: ok

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comments to authors-1.docx
Revision 1

Spatial pattern and associated factors of timely vaccination in Ethiopia using EDHS 2016 data: a spatial and multilevel analysis.

Muluken Chanie Agimas*1, Meron Asmamaw1, Nebiyu Mekonen1, Fantu Mamo1, Daniel Alayu Shewaye1.

1. College of medicine and health science, institute of public health, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, university of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.

Authors address:

Muluken Chanie: mulukensrc12@gmail.com

Meron Asimamaw: merryalem101@gmail.com

Nebiyu Mekonen: nebiyumek12@gmail.com

Fantu mamo: fantuma3@gmail.com

Daniel Alayu: danielalayu14@gmail.com

Corresponding Author

Muluken Chanie: mulukensrc12@gmail.com

To: PLOS ONE <em@editorialmanager.com>

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-00874

Cover Letter for reviewer’s comments and authors responses

We would like to thank both the Editorial board members and reviewers for kind comments and suggestions. Accordingly, we have tried to correct and respond to those comments point by point, page by page, and line by line. Therefore, we prepared this author’s response, the revised manuscript, the separate revised figures and tables, and the tracked changes of the manuscript.

Sincerely, with best regards!

Muluken Chanie Agimas

ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0808-124X

Comments from review and editorial board Authors response

1. Some of your references cited in the introduction part has no relation to your document.

a. Citation #1 talks about “The impact of the vaccination program for hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in Hu County, China”, remove this citation and replace it with appropriate citation.

b. Citation #2 briefs about influenza vaccine not about period of vaccine administration. Revise and replace with the appropriate citations.

c. Citation #3 is not the finding of the research you cited. Rather, you used from cross reference. So, replace it with appropriate source,

Dear reviewer it is a very interesting comment and we accepted, so that we removed those references which are inappropriately cited and substituted with the appropriate references so we revised our manuscript accordingly.

2. Page 3, line 58-59; revise the sentence. Next to citation 6, please add the program of vaccination based on WHO recommendation.

Great comments: totally accepted and has been revised as follows:

the world health organization (WHO) recommends that the vaccine should take within 1-year schedule to maximize the protective effect of the vaccine

3. Page 4, line 71; write full words on their first appearance, VPDs Great. Corrected as follows on page 4 line-71

Like other countries, in Ethiopia, age-appropriate vaccination is the key strategic activity to reduce easily preventable childhood mortality from measles, pneumonia, diarrheal diseases, and other vaccine preventable diseases (17).

4. Page 4, line 76; the citation used for Toke kutaye reference number 18 is not correct. The reference listed on number 18 is Xiao X, Wu Z-C, Chou K-C , 2011.

Thank you dear reviewer you observe wisely we saw the reference and really needs amendment. So the comment is corrected by the following reference

19. Dirirsa K, Makuria M, Mulu E, Deriba BS. Assessment of vaccination timeliness and associated factors among children in Toke Kutaye district, central Ethiopia: A Mixed study. Plos one. 2022;17(1):e0262320.

Method

5. Page 4, line 84-85; the population of Ethiopia is 114,963,588, include your reference

Well as long as we use another’s report we have to acknowledge the source so we admit the comment and revision has made on references and the population size of Ethiopia (latest data)

6. Page 4, line 89-90; what is the need of this statement “the Ethiopian demographic health survey of 2016 revealed that among ten children aged 12-23, four children (39%) received all the basic vaccines (19).:”?

Dear reviewer it is a very interesting comment and we accepted, so that we removed those phrasing which are irrelevant to the study

7. Page 6, line 119; table 1, there is no table clearly showing table 1 since table captions are 1 for all.

Great comment and correction has made by the following ways:

Intra-class coefficient (ICC) was used for the measurement of variation across regions with value of 18.7%. Analysis was undergone in four models; null model (model of without independent variables), model-I (individual level predictors), model-II (group level predictors), model-III (both model-I and model-II). For all models ICC, a proportional change in variance (PCV), log-likelihood test, and Akaike information criterion (AIC) model were calculated (Table-1).

Results

8. Page 7, line 144, line 149, and page 9 line 200; you cited table 2, 3, and 4, but not appropriately used the captions.

9. Page 8, line 162; figure 4 is not available in lists of tables or has no caption. Great view and revision also made on the table captions.

Great view and revision also made on the figure-4 (figure-3 in the revised figure) caption. And the list will be incorporated when submitted

10. Pages 7- 8, line 158-162; why you included about anemia? Remove it.

It is an editorial problem and the revision has made and replaced with age appropriate vaccination practice.

11. At the end of your discussion add strength and limitation of your study.

Dear reviewers, if the journal recommends the limitation and the strength of the study as a part of the discussion, we will do it.

Conclusion

12. Actually, you have no variable that shows lack of transportation fees. So, you could not give the following recommendation since it is not a part of your findings. So remove it. “Provide outreach vaccination for those are difficulty accessing the vaccine because of lack of transport fees could bring a significant contribution to improving age appropriate vaccination practice by health care workers.”

Okay It is obvious that the recommendations should be based on the findings. So revision has made accordingly

13. Page 12, line 264-266; move the strength and limitation to discussion part.

Dear reviewers, as we have mention earlier in comment 12:

If the journal recommends the limitation and the strength of the study as a part of the discussion, we will do it.

References

14. References 1-3 are not related with your citation, so change and update them.

Great. The necessary revision has made because the reference was unrelated

15. Reference number 19 is not fully written. Revise it. Dear reviewer as we have stated earlier it is a very interesting comment and we accepted it. So that we removed those references which are inappropriately cited and substituted with the appropriate references so we revised our manuscript accordingly.

Tables

16. There are 4 tables listed in the manuscript. But the caption of each table is not correct. All tables are labeled as “table 1”, revise and correct them. Okay accepted. The caption and the labels of each table has been corrected After the correction, the revised tables and figures will be attached accordingly

17. Sociodemographic table, under variable region, change Somalia to Somali.

Thank you for your detailed comments, all the comments that you have raised are very important and we just accept all the comments and we have taken a lesson from the comments. Similarly The necessary amendment has made on comment_17. Which is Somalia is changed to Somali in the revised manuscript.

Figures

18. Out of the 7 figures listed in in this manuscript, one figure has no caption. Revise it.

Definitely. Figure-4 (figure-3 in the revised figure) has no caption. So amendment/revision has made. In the revision the most important comments of the captions are incorporated.

Other comments from the reviewer

The manuscript needs to take an editorial revision to tackle minor grammar issues. Dear reviewer the grammar error has been reviewed.

To clearly indicate and just the existence of the spatial variation, it is also highly important if some spatial tests are taken into account. With these comments, I recommend that the article be published. Dear reviewer, you are right. Definitely, if spatial tests were added it was better. But in this study, our objective was to show the geographical distribution/variation of timely vaccination practice. Therefore we have reported the finding based on the stated objectives.

I don’t see the effects of age when dealing the spatial issues. What is the relevance of considering age as one of the explanatory variables in dealing with spatial analysis? Dear reviewer in my research an attempt has been made to show the distribution of timely vaccination/age-appropriate vaccination across the region of Ethiopia. So age in this case shows whether the vaccine was taken at the appropriate age or not (Yes, No). For example, according to WHO, BCG, the polio-0 vaccine should take at birth, polio-1, penta-1 pcv-1 should be taken at one month or after 4 weeks and so on. Therefore in this study we show the spatial distribution of this timely/age appropriate vaccination. Not mean that the spatial variation of the child age.

I also suggest the authors to highlight and explain the issue of spatial dependency in the methodology subsection.

Great comment. We miss it and now we revise it accordingly.

Comments from editors

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 been entirety. The correction has been made based on the comment. And the supporting information has been submitted by the file name “supporting information”

We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. My ID= https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0808-124X

We note that Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines Dear editor deadly sure the image never copy from other sources rather the image was from ARC GIS output. But the shape file was from CSA 2013. Therefore the source of the shape file included in the revised shape/figure

But figure one was obtained from other sources and I cannot obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license. So I remove the figure -1

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.

Dear editor this comment is not only your comment but also the reviewers’. Therefore I accept the comment and an amendment has been made.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: respose to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Gizachew Gobebo Mekebo, Editor

Spatial pattern and associated factors of timely vaccination in Ethiopia using EDHS-2016 data: A multilevel and spatial analysis

PONE-D-23-00874R1

Dear Dr. chanie,

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,

Gizachew Gobebo Mekebo

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 #2: (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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Gizachew Gobebo Mekebo, Editor

PONE-D-23-00874R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Agimas,

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

Assistant Professor Gizachew Gobebo Mekebo

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 .