Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 24, 2025
Decision Letter - Yibeltal Alemu Bekele, Editor

Dear Dr. Girma, 

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 17 2025 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.

  • 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 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,

Yibeltal Alemu Bekele, MpH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. We note that Figure 2 and 3 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

 a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 and 3 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/

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 and 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

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.

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents valuable original research on the spatial distribution of stunting in SSA. With some minor revisions and additional details, it has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of public health and nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Reviewer #2: Summary

The paper addresses an important issue. However, some areas require clarification and revision. The following comments highlight specific aspects that need revision:

Abstract:

• Please specify the spatial interpolation technique.

Methods:

• Study setting and period: The first sentence mentions that the current study was carried out in 48 countries, while the last line mentions that, due to some technical reasons, the study was carried out in 31 SSA countries. This inconsistency may cause confusion. Consider rephrasing for clarity.

• Population and sample: In the first line of the first paragraph, mention that the study focuses on children under five years of age. In the second paragraph, the fourth line after the full stop is unclear. Breastfeed part and the questioning of mothers of reproductive age seem combined. Consider separating these aspects for better clarity. The last paragraph of this section would be more effective if placed at the beginning to provide context for the study.

• Variables and data sources: Correct the abbreviation for Global Administrative Areas, to GADM.

• Mention the software used to create Figure 1.

• Provide the formula for calculating Moran’s I value.

Results:

• The first sentence repeats information already provided in the Methods section. Consider removing it to avoid redundancy.

• Introduce a subheading for the section discussing socio-demographic characteristics and present the associated findings in a separate paragraph before moving on to other results.

• Spatial distribution of stunting in SSA: Cite the relevant figure or table wherever appropriate. For example, in the second paragraph, the fourth and eighth lines, indicate the corresponding figure number.

Discussion:

Strengthen the discussion by comparing and contrasting the findings with previous studies. If possible, include a comparison of current estimates and patterns of stunting in SSA with data from an earlier period.

Figures and Tables:

• In Figure 2, provide coordinates and scale, indicate the north line, and add a heading for proper interpretation and analysis of the map.

• In figure and table captions, the year 2024 is mentioned as the reference year. Although, in Table 1, it is mentioned that the recent DHS data vary by country.

• In Tables 2 and 3, replace ‘frequency’ with ‘percentage/proportion’ for numerical values (Table 2) and for stunting prevalence across eligible countries (Table 3).

Recommended course of action: Request Revision

**********

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:  Luqman Adewale Abass

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

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Peer Review Report- Breast Feeding.docx
Revision 1

Title: Spatial distribution of stunting among breastfeeding children in Sub-Sahara Africa

Authors

Bekahegn Girma, Lealem Dibku Sasahu and Azizur Rahman

Dear Editor, thank you for giving us a chance to revise our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution of stunting among breastfeeding children in Sub-Saharan Africa.” The reviewer’s comments are insightful and important to improve the quality of our manuscript. Based on the comments, we have made revisions and rewritten a point-by-point response. Finally, the clean version of the revised manuscript and the track changes are uploaded.

Reviewer 1

This manuscript presents valuable original research on the spatial distribution of stunting in SSA. With some minor revisions and additional details, it has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of public health and nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you. We revised this manuscript accordingly based on your valuable comments.

Comments: Originality and Novelty: The study presents original research on the spatial distribution of stunting among breastfeeding children in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). While previous studies have examined stunting in specific countries, this research provides a comprehensive analysis across 31 SSA nations, filling a gap in the literature.

Response: Yes, you are right; the finding will help policy makers.

Comments: Methodology and Technical Standards: The researchers employed a robust methodology using Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from 31 SSA countries, encompassing 174,586 breastfeeding children across 15,398 clusters. The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and spatial analytic methods, such as Getis-Ord Gi* and Global Moran's I, demonstrates a high technical standard in analyzing spatial patterns of stunting.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you.

Comments: Data Analysis and Presentation: The statistical analysis appears to be conducted rigorously, with appropriate weighting to account for varying response rates and sampling probabilities. The use of spatial autocorrelation techniques and interpolation methods provides a comprehensive view of stunting distribution across SSA.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you again.

Comments: Results and Conclusions: The study's findings are presented clearly, with stunting prevalence ranging from 17.63% to 53.68% across different SSA countries. The identification of hotspots in Central and Eastern Africa and cold spots in Southern Africa is well-supported by the data and analysis presented. The conclusions drawn from these results appear appropriate and align with the study's objectives.

Response: Dear reviewer, your idea is constructive and meaningful.

Comments: Clarity and Language: The manuscript is written in Standard English and is generally intelligible. However, there are some minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that could be improved for clarity.

Response: Extensive editing is done to avoid any grammatical errors and confusing paragraphs.

Comments: Ethical Considerations: While not explicitly stated in the provided passage, the use of DHS data typically adheres to ethical standards. However, the manuscript should include a statement on ethical approval and data usage permissions to ensure full compliance with research integrity standards.

Response: Thank you. Based on your suggestion, we revised the ethical consideration of our manuscript (page 12, line numbers 275-280).

Comments: Reporting Guidelines and Data Availability: The study appears to follow appropriate reporting guidelines for spatial analysis research. However, a statement on data availability should be included to meet community standards.

Response: The data availability section of this study is revised as you suggested (page 12, line numbers 282-284).

Comments: Literature Review: The background section could benefit from a more comprehensive review of recent literature on stunting in SSA, particularly studies using similar spatial analysis techniques.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your comments. We have tried to add comprehensive reviews conducted at the SSA level. However, there is no study conducted to assess the spatial distribution of stunting at the African level (page 3, line numbers 65-75).

Comments: Discussion: Expand on the implications of the findings for public health policy and interventions in SSA.

Response: The implication of this study is included in the discussion section in detail based on your suggestion (page 10, line numbers 236-247).

Comment: Limitations: Include a dedicated section discussing the study's limitations, such as potential biases in DHS data or challenges in cross-country comparisons

Response: As you recommended, an additional potential limitation of this study related to the nature of the data is included in the revised version of this manuscript (page 11, line numbers 151-256).

Reviewer 2

Comments: The paper addresses an important issue. However, some areas require clarification and revision. The following comments highlight specific aspects that need revision: Abstract: Please specify the spatial interpolation technique.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much. The spatial interpolation technique (Kriging) is included in the abstract (page 2, line number 36).

Comments: Study setting and period: The first sentence mentions that the current study was carried out in 48 countries, while the last line mentions that, due to some technical reasons, the study was carried out in 31 SSA countries. This inconsistency may cause confusion. Consider rephrasing for clarity.

Response: The paragraph is paraphrased accordingly to enhance its clarity (page 4, line numbers 103-107).

Comments: Population and sample: In the first line of the first paragraph, mention that the study focuses on children under five years of age. In the second paragraph, the fourth line after the full stop is unclear. Breastfeeding and the questioning of mothers of reproductive age seem combined. Consider separating these aspects for better clarity. The last paragraph of this section would be more effective if placed at the beginning to provide context for the study.

Response: The above section of this manuscript is revised as you recommended, and the last paragraph is placed at the beginning of the paragraph (page 5, line numbers 109-119).

Comments: Variables and data sources: Correct the abbreviation for Global Administrative Areas to GADM. Mention the software used to create Figure 1. Provide the formula for calculating Moran’s I value.

Response: The abbreviation is corrected as well as the software for the autocorrelation is described in the clear version of this paper. Lastly, the Moran’s index formula is included (page 5-6, line numbers 128-153).

Comments: Results: The first sentence repeats information already provided in the Methods section. Consider removing it to avoid redundancy.

Response: It is removed.

Comment: Introduce a subheading for the section discussing socio-demographic characteristics and present the associated findings in a separate paragraph before moving on to other results.

Response: The subheading is inserted, and other variables are also described (page 7, line numbers 170-172).

Comments: Spatial distribution of stunting in SSA: Cite the relevant figure or table wherever appropriate. For example, in the second paragraph, the fourth and eighth lines indicate the corresponding figure number.

Response: the relevant figures are cited in the correct place in the manuscript (page 8, line numbers 180-193)

Comments: Discussion: Strengthen the discussion by comparing and contrasting the findings with previous studies. If possible, include a comparison of current estimates and patterns of stunting in SSA with data from an earlier period.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments. Despite there being no similar study done to assess the spatial distribution, we used related studies and reports for comparison (page 9, line numbers 209-213).

Comments: In Figure 2, provide coordinates and scale, indicate the north line, and add a heading for proper interpretation and analysis of the map.

Response: The coordinate, scale, and heading of Figure 2 are inserted.

Comment: In figure and table captions, the year 2024 is mentioned as the reference year.

Response: All the captions are checked, and the year is changed to 2025.

Comments: Although, in Table 1, it is mentioned that the recent DHS data vary by country.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you for your concern. However, there is no common and fixed year for each country. Therefore, we used the recent DHS data of each country (within 10 years).

Comments: In Tables 2 and 3, replace ‘frequency’ with ‘percentage/proportion’ for numerical values (Table 2) and for stunting prevalence across eligible countries (Table 3).

Response: A revision is done accordingly as you advised.

Thank you!

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: point by point stunting 2.pdf
Decision Letter - Yibeltal Alemu Bekele, Editor

Spatial distribution of stunting among breast feeding children in Sub-Sahara Africa

PONE-D-25-03856R1

Dear Dr. Bekahegn Girma,

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,

Yibeltal Alemu Bekele, MpH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yibeltal Alemu Bekele, Editor

PONE-D-25-03856R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Girma,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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

Mr. Yibeltal Alemu Bekele

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 .