Exclusive breast feeding practice and associated factors among Rural and Urban mothers of child aged 0–6 months in Tahtay Maichew District of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2023/2024: Comparative cross sectional study

Mebrahtom Birhane Tikue; Teklay Zeru Weldearegawi; Teklemariam Gebregziabher Goitom; Berhe Gebrehiwot Tewele; Nebiat Desale Gidey; Willi Bahre

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0344163

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 7, 2025
20 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor PONE-D-25-42029 Exclusive breastfeeding practice and associated factors among Rural and Urban mothers of child aged 0-6 months in Tahtay Maichew District of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2023/2024: Comparative cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tikue, 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 Nov 04 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. 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. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. 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. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 6. 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? 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Hello dear authors. MS Id: PONE-D-25-42029 Title: Exclusive breastfeeding practice and associated factors among Rural and Urban mothers of child aged 0-6 months in Tahtay Maichew District of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2023/2024: Comparative cross-sectional study Type: Research Article Here are my recommendations about the mentioned MS: Title: • Looks good. Abstract: • Looks good. Introduction: • Strengthen your introduction with more references. Methodology: • Setting, period, population, and sampling are to be in one section, and remove any extra information that is not directly related to the method of the study. • The method includes two mentions of sampling. You could be described in one paragraph. • The tool's reliability has to exist. • Dedicate a paragraph and describe variables for the tools. • The pilot study and the reliability process for the tools have not been mentioned. • Please consider removing the operational definition of the terms from the method section, as it may not be necessary. Results: • Comments for table two must just exist and contain the majority. Discussion: • No need to rewrite the results in the discussion. Conclusion: • Looks good. References: • Looks good. Figures and tables: • No figure exists. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I want to extend my appreciation for your research, which provides valuable insights and addresses the critical issue of exclusive breastfeeding practices in a comparative context. Below are some comments and suggestions: 1. Abstract Consider emphasizing the significance of the comparative aspect It’s good to see the use of logistic regression for analysis but including a brief explanation of the significance of these analyses would be beneficial for readers unfamiliar with statistical methods. Line 42 and 43: “VII In the urban area education on exclusive breast feeding practice during antenatal care visit pra” revise this as it’s not clearly written. 2. Background The background provides comprehensive information about the importance of exclusive breastfeeding. Consider organizing it into clearly defined flow. 3. Method and materials The sample size determination process is described, but it would be beneficial to provide the specific formula used for clarity. Additionally, ensure that the rationale behind the assumed proportions is clearly explained. Line 207 and 208: “K= N/n =390/346=1.12. Using lottery method we picked randomly number 3. Every Kth interval was selected” How did you used the Kth interval while it is mentioned that K=1.12? The sampling procedure is detailed, but it might be helpful to summarize the key steps in a flowchart for better clarity and readability. 4. Result The socio-demographic characteristics are well-presented. Consider highlighting any significant differences between rural and urban respondents that could impact the study's conclusions. 5. Discussion The discussion presents important findings, but the flow can be improved by using clearer transitions between key points. Consider grouping related themes together for better coherence. How could educational interventions be tailored to meet the needs of urban versus rural mothers? 6. Conclusion Consider including specific recommendations for health interventions or future research based on the study's findings. ******* 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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344163.r001
Revision 1
29 Nov 2025 Author Response Response letter for reviewers Oct 03, 2025 Dear Editor, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revised draft of our manuscript entitled “Exclusive breast feeding practice and associated factors among Rural and Urban mothers of child aged 0-6 months in Tahtay Maichew District of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2023/2024: Comparative cross sectional study” to PLOS ONE. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated for providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you and the reviewers for the insightful comments on our paper. We have tried to revise our manuscript in accordance with the suggestions and comments provided by you and the reviewers. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments made by the reviewers, the editor, and the editorial staff. Sincerely, Mebrahtom Birhane Tikue Adigrat University, Ethiopia E-mail: meb2040b@gmail.com/meb5242@gmail.com Phone number: +251901297441/251974570700 Part One: Point-by-point responses to editor and editorial staff 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. Response: Uploaded � 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. Response: A revised manuscript with track changes is submitted in accordance with the instruction. � An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript. Response: A revised manuscript without tracked changes is submitted in accordance with the instruction. 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. Response: It meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. Response: Modified 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Response: Incorporated 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Response: Modified 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: It meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. Response: Yes, I obtained the consent from the participants; the format consent was incorporated in the questionnaire prior to starting the interviewing. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Response: incorporated 5. 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. Response: Yes, obtained Part two: Point-by-point responses to reviewers Reviewer 1 Thank you, dear reviewer, for reviewing our paper. We have answered each of your points below. 1) Strengthen your introduction with more references. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback. We have already incorporated. 2) Setting, period, population, and sampling are to be in one section, and remove any extra information that is not directly related to the method of the study. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback .We have already modified it. 3) The method includes two mentions of sampling. You could be described in one paragraph. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified it as a paragraph. 4) The tool's reliability has to exist. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your constructive and valuable feedback. We would like to clarify that we conducted a pre-test on 5% of the sample and made the necessary modifications based on the results. However, we did not report Cronbach’s alpha because it is primarily recommended for Likert-scale items, and in tools with dichotomous or non-Likert items, the values often appear low despite the tool functioning well. 5) Dedicate a paragraph and describe variables for the tools. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive e feedback. We modified it. 6) The pilot study and the reliability process for the tools have not been mentioned. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We would like to clarify that we conducted a pre-test on 5% of the sample and made the necessary modifications based on the results. 7) Please consider removing the operational definition of the terms from the method section, as it may not be necessary. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We removed them from page 11 and 12. 8) Comments for table two must just exist and contain the majority. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified it. 9) No need to rewrite the results in the discussion. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified it. 10) No figure exists. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. But we did not plan to display results with figures. Ruther we preferred to display them with tables and paragraphs. Part two: Point-by-point responses to reviewers Reviewer 2 Thank you, dear reviewer, for reviewing our paper. We have answered each of your points below. 1. Abstract 1.1) Consider emphasizing the significance of the comparative aspect Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We modified it by adding additional explanations. 1.2) It’s good to see the use of logistic regression for analysis but including a brief explanation of the significance of these analyses would be beneficial for readers unfamiliar with statistical methods. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We modified it. 1.3) Line 42 and 43: “VII In the urban area education on exclusive breast-feeding practice during antenatal care visit pra” revise this as it’s not clearly written. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. They are already modfied. 2. Background 2.1) The background provides comprehensive information about the importance of exclusive breastfeeding. Consider organizing it into clearly defined flow. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We incorporated comparative explanation about this study. 3. Method and materials 3.1) The sample size determination process is described, but it would be beneficial to provide the specific formula used for clarity. Additionally, ensure that the rationale behind the assumed proportions is clearly explained. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have incorporated both using the double population proportion and factor based sample size determination. Then we chose the formula that gave us the largest sample size which was the double population proportion sample size determination method. 3.2) Line 207 and 208: “K= N/n =390/346=1.12. Using lottery method we picked randomly number 3. Every Kth interval was selected” How did you used the Kth interval while it is mentioned that K=1.12? Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified 1.2 to 2 and then then we picked number 2 randomly from 1and 2. Then very Kth volunteer lactating mother from the sample from were selected for interviewing. 3.3) The sampling procedure is detailed, but it might be helpful to summarize the key steps in a flowchart for better clarity and readability. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We incorporated the sampling procedure in the form of flow chart/figure form in the indicated place. 4. Result 4.1)The socio-demographic characteristics are well-presented. Consider highlighting any significant differences between rural and urban respondents that could impact the study's conclusions. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already incorporated it. 5. Discussion 5.1) The discussion presents important findings, but the flow can be improved by using clearer transitions between key points. Consider grouping related themes together for better coherence. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We modified it by paraphrasing the concepts. 5.2) How could educational interventions be tailored to meet the needs of urban versus rural mothers? Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. Creating maternal behavioral change and awareness can increase the health seeking behavior. As a result, it increases mothers to attend and searching health related information from different Medias. Thus, help them differentiate the advantages and disadvantages of exclusive breast feeding. 6.Conclusion 6.1) Consider including specific recommendations for health interventions or future research based on the study's findings. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We incorporated list of recommendations for the concerned bodies. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344163.r002
14 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor PONE-D-25-42029R1 Exclusive breastfeeding practice and associated factors among Rural and Urban mothers of child aged 0-6 months in Tahtay Maichew District of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2023/2024: Comparative cross-sectional study PLOS One Dear Mr. Mebrahtom, 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 Jan 28 2026 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 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: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. 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 #1: (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 #1: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 ****** 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 #1: Results: • Comments for table three and table four are inadequate. Please report in the table comments all significant and majority results. • Define abreviations and symbols used in the tables below the table (for all table). Discussion: • No need to rewrite the results in the discussion if need just report p values or percentages. Conclusion: • Mention the brief summary of your findings and main implications of your results. ****** 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: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344163.r003
Revision 2
4 Feb 2026 Author Response Point by point feedback to Reviewer #1: Results: 1) Comments for table three and table four are inadequate. Please report in the table comments all significant and majority results. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified it, 2) Define abbreviations and symbols used in the tables below the table (for all table). Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified them. Discussion: 1) No need to rewrite the results in the discussion if need just report p values or percentages. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified it. Conclusion: 1) Mention the brief summary of your findings and main implications of your results. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable feedback. We have already modified it. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344163.r004
18 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor Exclusive breastfeeding practice and associated factors among Rural and Urban mothers of child aged 0-6 months in Tahtay Maichew District of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2023/2024: Comparative cross-sectional study PONE-D-25-42029R2 Dear Dr. Mebrahtom, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support. 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: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344163.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kahsu Gebrekidan, Editor PONE-D-25-42029R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Tikue, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344163.r006

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 .