Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 10, 2020
Decision Letter - Alessandra N. Bazzano, Editor

PONE-D-20-17725

Unhygienic stool-disposal practices among children under five in Cambodia: evidence from a demographic and health survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vong,

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.

The authors have provided an interesting and important analysis. Please address the reviewers' concerns in order to improve the manuscript for potential publication. All of the below comments should be addressed and please also consider the comments of the third reviewer which were made directly in text comments on the manuscript. When addressing the comments, please indicate where the text was changed in the manuscript in response to each comment. Thank you.

1- I feel sometime confusing to the title of the manuscript as you mention "... practices among children under five...". If possible, I would suggest you to add "... practices among mother/ care giver of children under five years..." to make it more specific and not confusing to reader.

2- Is affiliation of corresponding author in Pursat province or Kampong Cham province? I found this confusing, please make this consistent and should not duplicated.

3- In the "Ethics" section you mention that you obtained data from CDHS, can you add the ref. number of the approval letter?  

4- As in above section, can you please clarify why this analysis approved by Khon Kean University but not National Ethics Committee for Health Research, Ministry of Health to Cambodia?

5- I think you may add in text citation and reference to your forth sentence in the introduction section.

6- In the second paragraph of the introduction, you abbreviated NGOs and put the full phrase in bracket. I think you may write the full phrase first then abbreviated it in bracket to make it consistent to other abbreviation of other phrases.

7- You may add "year" after "age 5" in the second line of the "Explanatory variables" section.

8- You may add in text citation and reference to the first sentence of "Statistical analysis" section.

9- I think the first paragraph of your "result" section, I think you may start some sentences with letter rather than number.

10- I think you specify subheading in the result section without term bivariate and multivariate analysis.

Reviewer #3: Here is a list of specific comments. Note: page numbering in reviews and comments is based on ruler applied in Editorial Manager-generated PDF. Line numbering is not available.

1. Page 1, Methods, line 2: I suggest replacing “multivariate” with ‘multivariable’ throughout the manuscript.

2. Page 1, Methods, lines 3: I suggest replacing “the Stata command svyset” with ‘Stata’ because the svyset command only declared the design but did not perform the analyses.

3. Page 1, Results: I suggest including more numeric associations. Maybe consider to list the most important factors because of the word limits.

4. Page 3, Data Source, lines 4–6: Were the seven data files “fertility”, . . . , and “nutrition” that were mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, I suggest replacing “household data” and “chilren’s data” with the names introduced previously.

5. Page 3, Data Source, lines 6–8: The sentence, “these data were used ... using multiple logistic regression”, was irrelevant for the Data Source section. I suggest removing it.

6. Page 4, Explanatory Variables, lines 10–15: Can these two sentences, “mother’s . . . ” and “similarly, the father’s . . . ”, be combined as one sentence, ‘mother’s and father’s education . . . ’?

7. Page 4, Explanatory Variables, lines 15–17: I was curious why child’s age and mother’s age were treated differently.

8. Page 5, Statistical Analysis, lines 1–2: The sentence, “the women’s individual sample weightings ...”, seemed duplicated comparing with the third subsequent sentence, “cross-tabulations ...”. If they were different, I suggest clarifying their differences. Otherwise, I suggest combining the two sentences into one.

9. Page 5, Statistical Analysis, lines 6–7: I was not sure the implication of “bivariate and multivariate”. Did it mean ‘unadjusted and adjusted’?

10. Page 5, Statistical Analysis, lines 7–9: The outcome was binary. The F-test and linearity test seemed inappropriate for the binary outcome. Unadjusted logistic regressions can be used to examine associations between the binary outcome and explanatory variables. In addition, please elaborate the linearity test.

11. Page 6, Statistical Analysis, line 2: Please make it clear that “the initial model” referred to “the multivariable binary logistic regression” in the second subsequent sentence.

12. Page 6, Statistical Analysis, lines 2–4: Shouldn’t the multi-collinearity exist among explanatory variables, not the outcome variables? Please clarify and elaborate further. I did not find any findings regarding the multi-collinearity in the Results section.

13. Page 6, Statistical Analysis, line 5: I thought the svyset command was only used to declare the survey data. Shouldn’t be there more commands used for further analyses?

14. Page 8, Table 1: I suggest including weighted numbers and percentages along with the unweighted ones.

15. Page 9, Table 2: I suspected the numbers in the COR column were unadjusted odds ratios. If so, I suggest replacing “COR” with ‘odds ratio’ and replacing “bivariate analysis’ with ‘unadjusted binary logistic regression’.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 25 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandra N. Bazzano

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 copy of the questionnaire used in the study as a supplemental file. We also ask that you amend your Ethics Statement and Methods section to specify whether informed participant consent was provided and if so, what type of consent (i.e., written, verbal, etc).

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your submission to publish this paper. I found the paper is very interesting and novel in this topic to Cambodia. However, I have some minor comments for your consideration to improve your manuscript as below.

1- I feel sometime confusing to the title of the manuscript as you mention "... practices among children under five...". If possible, I would suggest you to add "... practices among mother/ care giver of children under five years..." to make it more specific and not confusing to reader.

2- Is affiliation of corresponding author in Pursat province or Kampong Cham province? I found this confusing, please make this consistent and should not duplicated.

3- In the "Ethics" section you mention that you obtained data from CDHS, can you add the ref. number of the approval letter?

4- As in above section, can you please clarify why this analysis approved by Khon Kean University but not National Ethics Committee for Health Research, Ministry of Health to Cambodia?

5- I think you may add in text citation and reference to your forth sentence in the introduction section.

6- In the second paragraph of the introduction, you abbreviated NGOs and put the full phrase in bracket. I think you may write the full phrase first then abbreviated it in bracket to make it consistent to other abbreviation of other phrases.

7- You may add "year" after "age 5" in the second line of the "Explanatory variables" section.

8- You may add in text citation and reference to the first sentence of "Statistical analysis" section.

9- I think the first paragraph of your "result" section, I think you may start some sentences with letter rather than number.

10- I think you specify subheading in the result section without term bivariate and multivariate analysis.

Thank again for your consideration to revise before publication.

All the best,

Reviewer #2: The article is all about the Unhygienic stool-disposal practices among children under five in Cambodia. the content of the manuscript was extremely informative and reliable. I have some minor comments.

For more I have added some comments in manuscript directly.please see attached

Reviewer #3: Here is a list of specific comments. Note: page numbering in reviews and comments is based on ruler applied in Editorial Manager-generated PDF. Line numbering is not available.

1. Page 1, Methods, line 2: I suggest replacing “multivariate” with ‘multivariable’ throughout the manuscript.

2. Page 1, Methods, lines 3: I suggest replacing “the Stata command svyset” with ‘Stata’ because the svyset command only declared the design but did not perform the analyses.

3. Page 1, Results: I suggest including more numeric associations. Maybe consider to list the most important factors because of the word limits.

4. Page 3, Data Source, lines 4–6: Were the seven data files “fertility”, . . . , and “nutrition” that were mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, I suggest replacing “household data” and “chilren’s data” with the names introduced previously.

5. Page 3, Data Source, lines 6–8: The sentence, “these data were used ... using multiple logistic regression”, was irrelevant for the Data Source section. I suggest removing it.

6. Page 4, Explanatory Variables, lines 10–15: Can these two sentences, “mother’s . . . ” and “similarly, the father’s . . . ”, be combined as one sentence, ‘mother’s and father’s education . . . ’?

7. Page 4, Explanatory Variables, lines 15–17: I was curious why child’s age and mother’s age were treated differently.

8. Page 5, Statistical Analysis, lines 1–2: The sentence, “the women’s individual sample weightings ...”, seemed duplicated comparing with the third subsequent sentence, “cross-tabulations ...”. If they were different, I suggest clarifying their differences. Otherwise, I suggest combining the two sentences into one.

9. Page 5, Statistical Analysis, lines 6–7: I was not sure the implication of “bivariate and multivariate”. Did it mean ‘unadjusted and adjusted’?

10. Page 5, Statistical Analysis, lines 7–9: The outcome was binary. The F-test and linearity test seemed inappropriate for the binary outcome. Unadjusted logistic regressions can be used to examine associations between the binary outcome and explanatory variables. In addition, please elaborate the linearity test.

11. Page 6, Statistical Analysis, line 2: Please make it clear that “the initial model” referred to “the multivariable binary logistic regression” in the second subsequent sentence.

12. Page 6, Statistical Analysis, lines 2–4: Shouldn’t the multi-collinearity exist among explanatory variables, not the outcome variables? Please clarify and elaborate further. I did not find any findings regarding the multi-collinearity in the Results section.

13. Page 6, Statistical Analysis, line 5: I thought the svyset command was only used to declare the survey data. Shouldn’t be there more commands used for further analyses?

14. Page 8, Table 1: I suggest including weighted numbers and percentages along with the unweighted ones.

15. Page 9, Table 2: I suspected the numbers in the COR column were unadjusted odds ratios. If so, I suggest replacing “COR” with ‘odds ratio’ and replacing “bivariate analysis’ with ‘unadjusted binary logistic regression’.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-17725_reviewer (1).pdf
Revision 1

Taken care. Please, see the attached files for each Respond to Reviewers (Reviewer #1, #2 and #3)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 3.docx
Decision Letter - Alessandra N. Bazzano, Editor

PONE-D-20-17725R1

Unhygienic stool-disposal practices among mothers of children under five in Cambodia: evidence from a demographic and health survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vong,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Thank you for addressing the reviewer comments from the previous version. Please finalize revision in response to the comment of reviewer:

" Many thanks for taken care of all my comments. I appreciate your response to all comments. However, in my comment #4, I would advice adding back the sentence of additional ethics approval from your university and you may add a phrase of "As part of my PhD at ...., this study ..."

It is recommended to provide the full detail on ethics approval from all sources.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandra N. Bazzano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Many thanks for taken care of all my comments. I appreciate your response to all comments. However, in my comment #4, I would advice adding back the sentence of additional ethics approval from your university and you may add a phrase of "As part of my PhD at ...., this study ..."

Thanks,

Reviewer #3: (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 #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 2
Decision Letter - Alessandra N. Bazzano, Editor

PONE-D-20-17725R2

Unhygienic stool-disposal practices among mothers of children under five in Cambodia: evidence from a demographic and health survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vong,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Pl

The authors have commendably addressed comments. However please add more information to the sentence on ethics review. Specifically, "Data from the CDHS were used after having obtained permission " please state who the permission was obtained from (Cambodia Ministry ? ICF?). Once that is complete it will be the final revision.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandra N. Bazzano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors have commendably addressed comments. However please add more information to the sentence on ethics review. Specifically, "Data from the CDHS were used after having obtained permission " please state who the permission was obtained from (Cambodia Ministry ? ICF?). Once that is complete it will be the final revision.

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

[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.

Reply: Taken care: As part of the first author’s PhD at Khon Kaen University, this study was conducted following additional approval received from the Khon Kean University Ethics Committee in Human Research with the ref. number HE632097.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Journal Requirements.docx
Revision 3

Data from the CDHS were used after having obtained written permission from the ICF

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Journal Requirements.docx
Decision Letter - Alessandra N. Bazzano, Editor

Unhygienic stool-disposal practices among mothers of children under five in Cambodia: evidence from a demographic and health survey

PONE-D-20-17725R3

Dear Dr. Vong,

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,

Alessandra N. Bazzano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Alessandra N. Bazzano, Editor

PONE-D-20-17725R3

Unhygienic stool-disposal practices among mothers of children under five in Cambodia: evidence from a demographic and health survey

Dear Dr. Vong:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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 plosone@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. Alessandra N. Bazzano

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 .