Analysis of Spatiotemporal Patterns of Undernutrition among Children below Five Years of Age in Uganda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic and the purpose of the research are very interesting and necessary for the issue they address. As much as possible, the introduction and materials and methods chapters are put together as expected. However, the problem of malnutrition and the causes of this phenomenon is known to world science. Various publications of international importance have been produced on the subject.
The article lacks a discussion preceded by a reliable analysis of the literature on the subject. The discussion should follow the presentation of the results of the research conducted by the authors in Uganda. It should be indicated in which aspects the results obtained coincide and in which aspects they diverge with research by other researchers in other African countries, perhaps in Uganda as well. Are the results unique compared to other researchers, or do they confirm the generally observed regularities? This will allow more in-depth conclusions to be drawn. At the moment, the conclusions are merely a summary of the authors' research, as they do not refer to reflections for discussion with other research results.
The authors have added figures in the text. Their existence is justified, but please take care to ensure that these figures are cartographically correct (for example, Figure 1 is not to scale) and that the sources of cartographic material are cited if they are not the product of the authors' elaboration. If the figures are from different stages of development, they should have a similar layout (fonts, linear scale and others)
Figure 1 should show the location of Uganda against Africa, while the administrative division of Uganda is less crucial than information on the country's land cover or landforms. For example, the administrative divisions could be shown against the landforms and this would be more visual for readers with no knowledge of Uganda.
Figure 9 also stands completely apart from the other figures because it is unreadable. What is the location of the bars showing 'undernutrition' from? What was the basic spatial unit? In the other figures the authors refer to the administrative divisions of Uganda, and in this figure we do not know what they are referring to (?)
Figures 10 and 11 should have differently structured legends. The explanations are unclear from the point of view of the issue under study. They may be clear to the authors of the statistical analysis, but they are not clear to the reader who tries to understand the obtained spatial distribution of the phenomenon.
The language is comprehensible, without complicated stylistic structures.
Author Response
The responses have been uploaded in a Ms word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting this article. However, I did not know the type of paper in this study. 1) The purpose of the research is not clear. 2) The hypothesis is also not clear. 3) I'm also not clear on how. 4) Are the figures cited? Is it done? don't understand. 5) Are the results based on the method of study? It's unclear. 6) Re-confirmation of citations of literature is also required.
N/A
Author Response
A file for the responses has been uploaded
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript, Analysis of Spatiotemporal Patterns of Undernutrition Among Children Below Five Years of Age in Uganda, is excellent. The authors provide a model manuscript that, using unique and well-described statistical modeling, provides a template for assessing undernutrition across the African continent. This template could provide important guidance in the development of policies consistent with WHO goals, and intervention tacts that may mitigate issues associated with undernutrition and malnutrition, especially among children < 5 years of age.
This reviewer appreciated the detailed explanation of the statistical models and data management that ultimately contributed to the authors' recommendations. While some reviewers and manuscript readers may not appreciate the detailed justifications of statistical analyses, this reviewer found the authors' approach quite refreshing.
The Journal should encourage the authors to pursue the two next steps noted above.
Except for some minor English grammar and spelling discrepancies, this well-written manuscript should be published in the Journal.
Author Response
An Ms word documents has been provided for this cause.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no comment for this article.
There is no comment for this article.
