Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study

Kalkidan Gezahegn; Selamawit Semagn; Mohammed Feyisso Shaka

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258953

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 30, 2020
9 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor PONE-D-20-12624 Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban setups of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shaka, 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 Dec 24 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, Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof. 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 address the following: - Please include additional information regarding the interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please include the details of the pre-testing of this tool, i.e. the number of participants and where they were recruited from. - Please refrain from stating p values as 0.00, either report the exact value or employ the format p<0.001. 3. 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. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, 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) 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. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. 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 delete it from any other section. 6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 8. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 6. [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: 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: No 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: Many expressions of the author are not standard, including the display of the table. For example, when the author expresses the result, sometimes the numbers are expressed in Arabic numerals, sometimes in words, and some sentences are not clear.Please refer to the published article format and expression for revision. Reviewer #2: Does the manuscript adhere to the PLOS Data Policy? Additional details can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing. (Answer options: Yes, No "I don’t know" 1. It is obvious that the writing need to be improved. I suggest the authors ask for a help from someone whose native language is English. 2. Section of “sample technique”: 1) The author described that a random cluster sampling was used to choose the evening school and then assigned the study participants according to the class grades. We didn’t find the class distribution of participants. Among the participants, “279 (70.8%) were adolescents (15-19 years old) whereas 115 (29.2%) were young adults (20- 24 years)”. Does the unbalanced sample exist? 2) “random sampling technique was used”, “data collectors were revisited the class room two times at different time intervals and for those who were absent after two revisits, the participant was replaced by another in the sampling frame”. How many women were replaced? Does the replace strategy have any effects on the study results? 3. Section of “measurement” 1) The sexual harassment is the most common of sexual violence experience for housemaid have experienced in this study. The author didn’t explain sexual harassment in detail, has one appropriate joke related to sex been included? If this, the proportion of sexual violence might be overestimated. 2) The alcoholic use has not been evaluated semi-quantitatively or quantitatively. This is a common-sense question: What time and how much of the alcohols consumption is the most important for the victim suffer from sexual violence. 4. Section of “results”: 1) In the descriptive analysis section, the author only needs to reveal the proportion of some important variables, for example those covariates lead to significant changes in the logistic model or other characteristic variables related to sexual violent founded from previous study. 2) Are the forms of the tables’ correct? Please refer to the author guidance of PLOS ONE. 5. Section of “Discussion” 1) The author discussed the results in comparability instead of analysis. 2) “This might be due to…”, “The possible explanation for this finding…”, “The possible suggestion might be…”, “This result might be due to …” were used by authors to explain the association between the related factors and sexual violence. It is suspicious that the author’s knowledge for the study field or the amounts of reference the author has read. 3) It is interesting for the findings that the educational attainments of fathers were associated with the sexual violence for the housemaids suffered. A health education system should be considered to help establishing an intimate father-daughter relationship in these districts. ****** 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.0258953.r001
Revision 1
7 Jan 2021 Author Response Rebuttal Letter_Response to reviewers PONE-D-20-12624 Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban setups of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study PLOS ONE 2. Please address the following: - Please include additional information regarding the interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please include the details of the pre-testing of this tool, i.e. the number of participants and where they were recruited from. - Please refrain from stating p values as 0.00, either report the exact value or employ the format p<0.001. Response: The detail about pretest was explained in the manuscript page four paragraph one. Additional information about the tool was included and due to copyright issue we couldn’t include as supporting information. P-value was corrected accordingly. 3. 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: It is explained in the manuscript under Ethical consideration section, page 6, Paragraph 1. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, 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) 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. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Response: We have uploaded the data on Dryad with DOI of https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hhmgqnkfv 5. 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 delete it from any other section. Response: Corrected accordingly. Page 6 paragraph 1 6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Response: Corrected. Page 8 7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: We have corrected the typing error regarding the table numbers 8. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 6. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Many expressions of the author are not standard, including the display of the table. For example, when the author expresses the result, sometimes the numbers are expressed in Arabic numerals, sometimes in words, and some sentences are not clear. Please refer to the published article format and expression for revision. Response: We have tried to make the presentation of the table to be to the standard. Unnecessary, numerical presentations in the table were modified Reviewer #2: Does the manuscript adhere to the PLOS Data Policy? Additional details can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing. (Answer options: Yes, No "I don’t know" 1. It is obvious that the writing need to be improved. I suggest the authors ask for a help from someone whose native language is English. Response: The manuscript English writing was proofread by Proffessional proofreaders to improve readability. 2. Section of “sample technique”: 1) The author described that a random cluster sampling was used to choose the evening school and then assigned the study participants according to the class grades. We didn’t find the class distribution of participants. Among the participants, “279 (70.8%) were adolescents (15-19 years old) whereas 115 (29.2%) were young adults (20- 24 years)”. Does the unbalanced sample exist Response: Class distribution of the students was briefly explained in the methodology under sampling technique subsection page 4. Regarding issue about existence of unbalanced sampling, the proportion is not due to unbalanced sampling. It entirely due to the actual age distribution of the population. 2) “random sampling technique was used”, “data collectors were revisited the class room two times at different time intervals and for those who were absent after two revisits, the participant was replaced by another in the sampling frame”. How many women were replaced? Does the replace strategy have any effects on the study results? Response: The number of women who replaced for their absence was not significant where only three women were missed and replaced. Replacement was also made by randomly selecting the participant from the previously unselected eligible population. 3. Section of “measurement” 1) The sexual harassment is the most common of sexual violence experience for housemaid have experienced in this study. The author didn’t explain sexual harassment in detail, has one appropriate joke related to sex been included? If this, the proportion of sexual violence might be overestimated. Response: Explained under measurement subsection second paragraph page 5 2) The alcoholic use has not been evaluated semi-quantitatively or quantitatively. This is a common-sense question: What time and how much of the alcohols consumption is the most important for the victim suffer from sexual violence. Response: The ASSIST tool is standard tool for assessment of the common substance uses based on the frequency and duration of use. We used that tool. With that tool we couldn’t find any women fulfilling criteria for substance use. So we measure the episodes of occasional use and classified alcohol use as ever use or not at all 4. Section of “results”: 1) In the descriptive analysis section, the author only needs to reveal the proportion of some important variables, for example those covariates lead to significant changes in the logistic model or other characteristic variables related to sexual violent founded from previous study. Response: We have tried to remove some variables thought to be less important to present in this study. However, as one of the objective of this study is to describe the violence and the characteristics of the study participants, we retained most of the variables thought to have relevant descriptive information. 2) Are the forms of the tables’ correct? Please refer to the author guidance of PLOS ONE. 5. Section of “Discussion” 1) The author discussed the results in comparability instead of analysis. Response: We have tried to present with the analysis of the findings 2) “This might be due to…”, “The possible explanation for this finding…”, “The possible suggestion might be…”, “This result might be due to …” were used by authors to explain the association between the related factors and sexual violence. It is suspicious that the author’s knowledge for the study field or the amounts of reference the author has read. Response: We have modified our way of explanation accordingly 3) It is interesting for the findings that the educational attainments of fathers were associated with the sexual violence for the housemaids suffered. A health education system should be considered to help establishing an intimate father-daughter relationship in these districts. Response: The finding of the study was disseminated to the local health planners and this will be an input to address the issue. ________________________________________ Thank you for your interesting and valuable comments that made us to improve our work substantially. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258953.r002
10 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor PONE-D-20-12624R1 Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shaka, 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 Jul 25 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. 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, Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: 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 #2: 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes 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 #2: The authours have addressed my previous comments. I am satisfated with their hard working on the field. Reviewer #3: I think, this study is an important addition to the literatüre, but I have some minor concerns. Data collection The authors used the face to face interview how did the participants feel comfortable such a sensitive issue? How did they prevent the bias and protect the correct of the answer? why did the author create the survey English language? Are these instruments available in their language, if not, did you make content and language validity of them? Ethical Consideration The main concern has protected minors, how did you protect them, when they disclosure sexual violence. What is your legal responsibility for the researcher? Is it any mandatory report about disclosure about SV. Please give your legal policy about this concern.. Discussion some findings haven't discussed, if they don't discuss, you should eliminate some findings based on your discussion. Please give the broader literature by supporting international and national studies. Please give some other references. for the international audience please give the other global studies results too. the whole discussion should support the international and national references some findings haven't discussed, if they don't discuss, you should eliminate some findings based on your discussion. The main limitation in this study seems that it was neglected to child protection I found the other review changes satisfactory for manuscript . ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No 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-20-12624_R1 reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258953.r003
Revision 2
5 Sep 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers • The authors used the face to face interview how did the participants feel comfortable such a sensitive issue? How did they prevent the bias and protect the correct of the answer? o From the report of the data collectors during the time of pre-test, the feeling of the respondents for the questions was not embarrassing and the respondents were very comfortable with the approach. The same was reported form the daily routine follow up of actual data collection o The data collectors were well trained to handle such issue o The participants were adequately reassured for the confidentiality of the information they provide o The interview was conducted at isolated place with adequate privacy • Why did the author create the survey English language? Are these instruments available in their language, if not, did you make content and language validity of them? We have used the survey tool that was used previously in comparable settings. We couldn’t find the tool in local language. We have tried to familiarize it with the context through pre-test and training of the surveyors. • Ethical Consideration The main concern has protected minors, how did you protect them, when they disclosure sexual violence. What is your legal responsibility for the researcher? Is it any mandatory report about disclosure about SV. Please give your legal policy about this concern. Confidentiality of the response was highly secured. As a researcher, we have provided contact information for any possible risk associated with the disclosure information during data collection. The respondents were advised for possible legal body and regulation regarding sexual violence according to guiding principle of acting in the best interests of the child. Otherwise, the right to lodge a complaint shall be exercised only by legal representative according to regulation in the locality and most of the participants of our study were older children (>15 years) and there were no issues regarding capacity to consent or a relationship of power as of our data collectors report from day to day follow up. Discussion • We have revised the discussion according to your suggestion including discussion of findings that were missed in the previous revision Thank you for your constructive comments. We are really appreciate the contribution you made to the improvement of our work. Mohammed Feyisso Shaka Kalkidan Gezahagn Selamawith Semagn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258953.r004
11 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study PONE-D-20-12624R2 Dear Dr. Shaka, 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, Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258953.r005
Formally Accepted
21 Oct 2021 Acceptance Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor PONE-D-20-12624R2 Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study Dear Dr. Shaka: 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. Nülüfer Erbil Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258953.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 .