The Role of Place of Delivery in Preventing Neonatal and Infant Mortality Rate in India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting topic, however there are numerous problems with the manuscript. Firstly, there are numerous English grammar and expression errors throughout the manuscript., that makes the manuscript incomprehensible. The manuscript should be proof-written by an English native speaker before it is considered publishable. Moreover, methods part is the last part of the manuscript, and it should follow the introduction part. The presentation of the results is very poor, for example Table 2 presents mortality rates but there is no explanation what these numbers stands for. The whole presentation of the results for table 3 and 4 is very confusing. Moreover, authors reported that they applied Cox proportional hazard regression models but they report odds ratios in their tables, while the measure of effect estimated by Cox regression hazards models is hazard ratio. In conclusion, there are numerous methodological problems in this manuscript, that it makes it not publishable in this current form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is very well done. Minor English corrections are needed throughout manuscript.
The manuscript describes how place of delivery plays an important role in neonatal and infant mortality. This is very important specially in countries where health care system poses lots of challenges in rural area. The study shows that the risk of neonatal mortality is higher when delivered at home than health care facility. Also, prenatal care and delivery by medically trained professionals reduces the odd of neonatal mortality. The strength of the study is that the topic is covered broadly and provides insights into an important health care issue in India. However, there are several weaknesses of this manuscript. First, the manuscript has lots of errors in English Grammar and this makes it very difficult to understand the flow of the manuscript. This English language errors must be corrected before it can be published. Also, another weakness I can point out is the presentation of results could have been better (may be graphs rather than just numbers). My recommendation would be to reconsider the manuscript only if the results can be presented in better way and also after major extensive correction of English language and style.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is much improved. However, there is still need for a revision of the manuscript by a native English-speaking reviewer throughout the manuscript, such as in line 61-62, line 64, line 66, line 71-74 and numerous other places throughout the manuscript. Moreover, in the abstract, line 21-24, authors should include the relevant RRs with the corresponding Cis. In Table 1, there should be a mark and a footnote for what represents every column. The same applied for Table 2 and all the Tables of the manuscript. For example, if ® stands for reference level in Tables 3-5, it should be noted in a footnote in every Table. Furthermore, every measure should be accompanied by the corresponding units, and every abbreviation should be explained in footnotes in all Tables. A carefully language edited version of the manuscript with a better presentation of the study results in Tables could be considered publishable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
