Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 18, 2024
Decision Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor

PONE-D-24-12746Predictors of neonatal hypothermia within six hours of birth and exploring preventive practices among post-natal mothers in Kilimanjaro region: explanatory sequential mixed method protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Daniel,

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 Aug 23 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:

  • 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,

Kahsu Gebrekidan, Ph.D.

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 a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: More details about analysis of the qualitative data.

For generalizability and reproducibility, researchers must consider the study setting and district, as well as the sample size

finally revise the required and resubmit

Reviewer #2: this is a study with a strong design. there is no commenrt

this is a study with a strong design. there is no commenrt

this is a study with a strong design. there is no commenrt

this is a study with a strong design. there is no commenrt

this is a study with a strong design. there is no commenrt

----------------------------

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Nahla Abdulrahman

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: Reviewer comments.pdf
Revision 1

Reviewer2: Author responses to comment

Reviewer comment 1: The introduction is relevant and satisfactory information about the topic is presented in an organized way, yet, the researcher needs to add more Introduction is relevant and satisfactory information about the topic is presented in an organized way, yet, researcher needs to add more previous studies mainly related to prediction and preventive measures taken by mothers worldwide, not only in the African region., not only in the African region.

Response: Thanks for the comment, previous studies mainly related to prediction and preventive measures taken by mothers worldwide, have been added to the introduction (Pg 5 of revised protocol)

Reviewer comment 2: On page no 3: I suggest using "implications of study” instead of discussion.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion, No, change has been made since due to PLOS one journal guideline, hence the word discussion remained in the abstract as appeared before (Pg 3 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 3: Also, the researcher uses the term (interview to collect the qualitative data). It is better to use the term (Focus group discussing: FGD) as a preferable technique for the collection of this type of data.

Response: This study intends to explore the individualized experience about the phenomenon and not a shared experience, therefore in-depth interview was opted for and not FGDs(Pg. 18-19 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 4: Page 6: Researchers must add objective(s) related to (protocol) that researchers seek to achieve and develop.

Response: To develop strategies to increase adherence to thermal care guidelines to reduce neonatal hypothermia among post-natal mothers (Pg. 6 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 5: The methods and materials are generally appropriate. However, more elaboration in the analysis of the qualitative data is needed, and researchers should provide justification

Response: More details about the analysis of the qualitative study have been revised (Pg. 20-21 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 6: Why only two districts were chosen and how many districts are there in the country under study, as well as why only four health facilities?

Response: Two districts were selected out of seven districts of the Kilimanjaro region because all districts share similar characteristics in terms of social structure and culture. Additionally, four health facilities were selected because of the equal availability of healthcare and a similar number of facility delivery thus sample size can be achieved at a minimum of four facilities (Pg. 9 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 7: Page no 8: more expansion why researchers chose both (full-term & preterm neonates) as samples, it is recognized that heat loss risk factors differ between premature and full-term neonates

Response: The researcher has selected both full-term and preterm neonates because of getting diversification of the magnitude of the problem and the development of evidence-based interventions and recommendations tailored to the unique needs of each population (Pg. 10 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 8: Data collection tools: Researchers need to add how to test the validity and reliability of data collection tools

Response: The reliability and validity of the tools have been revised in the study protocol (Pg.13-14 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 9: Researchers will take (15) post-natal mothers as samples, so they need to add what precautions will be taken in case of postnatal mothers’ withdrawal from the study. Some references need to be updated.

Response: The study will take 15 postnatal women as a baseline sample size since, in qualitative research, there is no fixed sample size; the sample size is determined by data saturation as indicated in the revised study protocol but for the case of withdrawal from the study, the replacement of the participants will be used as a mechanism to maintain the sample size in case of withdraw (Pg. 18 of the revised study protocol)

Reviewer comment 10: Some references need to be updated

Response: All References revised and all are updated (Pg 26-29 of the revised study protocol)

Editors’ comments

Thanks for the constructive comments: The author(s) have addressed all comments from your office to abide by PLOS One journal guidelines and editor guidelines and all comments have been addressed in submission system and also in study protocol

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter(Response to reviewer).docx
Decision Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor

Predictors of neonatal hypothermia within six hours of birth and exploring preventive practices among post-natal mothers in Kilimanjaro region: explanatory sequential mixed method protocol

PONE-D-24-12746R1

Dear Mr. Emmanuel,

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,

Kahsu Gebrekidan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor

PONE-D-24-12746R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Daniel,

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. Kahsu Gebrekidan

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 .