NOTICE: This document contains correspondence generated during peer review and subsequent revisions but before transmittal to production for composition and copyediting:
• Comments from the reviewers and editors (email to author requesting revisions)
• Response from the author (cover letter submitted with revised manuscript)*
*The corresponding author has opted to make this information publicly available.
Personal or nonessential information may be redacted at the editor’s discretion.
Questions about these materials may be directed to the Obstetrics & Gynecology editorial office:
[email protected].
Date: Jul 16, 2020 To: "Carly Dahl"
From: "The Green Journal" [email protected] Subject: Your Submission ONG-20-1413
RE: Manuscript Number ONG-20-1413
Birth Behind Bars: The need for labor support in the incarcerated population Dear Dr. Dahl:
Your manuscript has been reviewed by the Editorial Board and by special expert referees. Although it is judged not acceptable for publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology in its present form, we would be willing to give further consideration to a revised version.
If you wish to consider revising your manuscript, you will first need to study carefully the enclosed reports submitted by the referees and editors. Each point raised requires a response, by either revising your manuscript or making a clear and convincing argument as to why no revision is needed. To facilitate our review, we prefer that the cover letter include the comments made by the reviewers and the editor followed by your response. The revised manuscript should indicate the position of all changes made. We suggest that you use the "track changes" feature in your word processing software to do so (rather than strikethrough or underline formatting).
***Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, your paper will be maintained in active status for 30 days from the date of this letter.
If we have not heard from you by Aug 15, 2020, we will assume you wish to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration.***
REVIEWER COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1: The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss the importance of creating a policy that allows for continuous labor support for incarcerated pregnant persons." This is a current commentary.
1. The authors note that a way to achieve support during labor would be to "Allow continuous labor support by an
individual of choice to all incarcerated pregnant persons." What type of screening would the "individual of choice" have to undergo before being allowed to provide support? Would they allow other incarcerated individuals to serve as the support person?
2. The authors discuss "early release." Would this vary by the crime for which the patient is incarcerated? violent crime?
Reviewer #2: This commentary makes a strong case for continuous labor support for pregnant persons in the prison system. The commentary is well written and addresses an important public health topic. The authors highlight the fact that women are the fastest growing population, 6-10% of women are pregnant at the time of incarceration, and vast majority of incarcerated pregnant persons experience childbirth alone. They do a nice job highlighting that the exact same factors that increase a person's likelihood to be incarcerated are often the same factors that increase likelihood for adverse pregnancy outcomes, perinatal morbidity, and mortality. Incarcerated women are among the most marginalized women in our society and at high risk for poor outcomes.
I think this is an important commentary. I have a few thoughts.
1. I think the authors' use of the term "carceral system" rather than criminal justice system is appropriate. However, the term will likely not be familiar to readers of the Green Journal. I suggest explaining this term and why they chose not to refer to the criminal justice system.
2. In the third paragraph the authors talk about structural racism and classism embedded within the carceral system. I believe this reflects larger social, economic, and political forces in society. The current language could be interpreted by some to limit racism and classism to the carceral system rather than recognizing that these are pervasive forces in all aspects of our society including the healthcare system.
View Letter
1 of 4 7/23/2020, 3:39 PM
3. While I think a doula program makes a lot of sense for this population I worry about paying for these services. I would suggest the authors add more substance here. Are there innovative partnerships, payment models, etc that might be applied in this setting?
Reviewer #3: Thank you for your commentary on labor support for incarcerated people. This is such an important topic.
The action steps you put forth for carceral systems to take are clear and well thought out. Your introduction can be improved by including additional discussion on how this is incorporated into a human-rights framework. Additional attention to any legal references will also provide more robust evidence and support. The ACLU has done some work on this issue, as has the National Women's Law Center. Non-traditional/gray literature can be helpful for work like this that transcends traditional research boundaries.
I think that not commenting on the impact coronavirus may have on this important issue is a disservice to your manuscript and your readers. For example, in May New York allowed for the release of pregnant inmates if their term was <6 months.
I also think that additional thought is needed on how to address the current BLM movement in respect to incarcerated pregnant people.
I appreciate your attention to non-gendered language in the manuscript; we must remember that not all people who are pregnant identify as women.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-calls-release-pregnant-people-prisons-and-jails https://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothersbehindbars2010.pdf
https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/women-prison/no-one-should-be-forced-give-birth-alone-jail-cell Line 54 - is there a reference to support this?
Line 66 - is there any evidence to back this up? Has anyone actually been successful in providing labor support for incarcerated people? I question how "easy" it is in the current carceral system.
Line 68 - many L&D currently have restrictions on visitors due to COVID-19. Can/should these policies be duplicated for the long-term for incarcerated patients in labor?
EDITOR COMMENTS:
We no longer require that authors adhere to the Green Journal format with the first submission of their papers. However, any revisions must do so. I strongly encourage you to read the instructions for authors (the general bits as well as those specific to the feature-type you are submitting). The instructions provide guidance regarding formatting, word and reference limits, authorship issues and other relevant topics. Adherence to these requirements with your revision will avoid delays during the revision process by avoiding re-revisions on your part in order to comply with formatting.
Numbers below refer to line numbers.
40. Do not begin a sentence with a numeral. Either spell out or edit your sentence to avoid the need to start w/ a number.
43. For clarity, this shackling prohibition is for labor, correct? This is unclear because on line 45 your say “pregnant persons in county jails may still be shackled” which reads as if the shackling prohibition you are discussing at this point relates to shackling at any time.
48. Why are you pointing out here “Unshackled” status? The statement is true for those in states that allow shackling in labor in non-federal prisons or jails, isn’t it?
49. Please avoid using the word “monumental” twice in 3 sentences.
50. I think you should also mention nurses here, who spend a lot more time in the room than do obstetricians during labor.
One reviewer commented that you should mention COVID-19 issues in your paper. If you wish to do so, by all means do. I
View Letter
4 7/23/2020, 3:39 PM
do not believe it is a required change.
EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS:
1. The Editors of Obstetrics & Gynecology are seeking to increase transparency around its peer-review process, in line with efforts to do so in international biomedical peer review publishing. If your article is accepted, we will be posting this revision letter as supplemental digital content to the published article online. Additionally, unless you choose to opt out, we will also be including your point-by-point response to the revision letter. If you opt out of including your response, only the revision letter will be posted. Please reply to this letter with one of two responses:
A. OPT-IN: Yes, please publish my point-by-point response letter.
B. OPT-OUT: No, please do not publish my point-by-point response letter.
2. Obstetrics & Gynecology uses an "electronic Copyright Transfer Agreement" (eCTA). When you are ready to revise your manuscript, you will be prompted in Editorial Manager (EM) to click on "Revise Submission." Doing so will launch the resubmission process, and you will be walked through the various questions that comprise the eCTA. Each of your coauthors will receive an email from the system requesting that they review and electronically sign the eCTA.
Please check with your coauthors to confirm that the disclosures listed in their eCTA forms are correctly disclosed on the manuscript's title page.
3. Standard obstetric and gynecology data definitions have been developed through the reVITALize initiative, which was convened by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the members of the Women's Health Registry Alliance. Obstetrics & Gynecology has adopted the use of the reVITALize definitions. Please access the obstetric data definitions at https://www.acog.org/practice-management/health-it-and-clinical-informatics/revitalize-obstetrics-data- definitions and the gynecology data definitions at https://www.acog.org/practice-management/health-it-and-clinical- informatics/revitalize-gynecology-data-definitions. If use of the reVITALize definitions is problematic, please discuss this in your point-by-point response to this letter.
4. Because of space limitations, it is important that your revised manuscript adhere to the following length restrictions by manuscript type: Current Commentary articles should not exceed 12 typed, double-spaced pages (3,000 words). Stated page limits include all numbered pages in a manuscript (i.e., title page, précis, abstract, text, references, tables, boxes, figure legends, and print appendixes) but exclude references.
5. Specific rules govern the use of acknowledgments in the journal. Please note the following guidelines:
* All financial support of the study must be acknowledged.
* Any and all manuscript preparation assistance, including but not limited to topic development, data collection, analysis, writing, or editorial assistance, must be disclosed in the acknowledgments. Such acknowledgments must identify the entities that provided and paid for this assistance, whether directly or indirectly.
* All persons who contributed to the work reported in the manuscript, but not sufficiently to be authors, must be
acknowledged. Written permission must be obtained from all individuals named in the acknowledgments, as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions. Please note that your response in the journal's electronic author form verifies that permission has been obtained from all named persons.
* If all or part of the paper was presented at the Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or at any other organizational meeting, that presentation should be noted (include the exact dates and location of the meeting).
6. Provide a short title of no more than 45 characters (40 characters for case reports), including spaces, for use as a running foot.
7. The most common deficiency in revised manuscripts involves the abstract. Be sure there are no inconsistencies between the Abstract and the manuscript, and that the Abstract has a clear conclusion statement based on the results found in the paper. Make sure that the abstract does not contain information that does not appear in the body text. If you submit a revision, please check the abstract carefully.
In addition, the abstract length should follow journal guidelines. The word limit for Current Commentary articles is 250 words. Please provide a word count.
8. Only standard abbreviations and acronyms are allowed. A selected list is available online at http://edmgr.ovid.com /ong/accounts/abbreviations.pdf. Abbreviations and acronyms cannot be used in the title or précis. Abbreviations and acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used in the abstract and again in the body of the manuscript.
9. The journal does not use the virgule symbol (/) in sentences with words. Please rephrase your text to avoid using
"and/or," or similar constructions throughout the text. You may retain this symbol if you are using it to express data or a
View Letter
4 7/23/2020, 3:39 PM
measurement.
10. ACOG is moving toward discontinuing the use of "provider." Please replace "provider" throughout your paper with either a specific term that defines the group to which are referring (for example, "physicians," "nurses," etc.), or use
"health care professional" if a specific term is not applicable.
11. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) documents are frequently updated. These
documents may be withdrawn and replaced with newer, revised versions. If you cite ACOG documents in your manuscript, be sure the reference you are citing is still current and available. If the reference you are citing has been updated (ie, replaced by a newer version), please ensure that the new version supports whatever statement you are making in your manuscript and then update your reference list accordingly (exceptions could include manuscripts that address items of historical interest). If the reference you are citing has been withdrawn with no clear replacement, please contact the editorial office for assistance ([email protected]). In most cases, if an ACOG document has been withdrawn, it should not be referenced in your manuscript (exceptions could include manuscripts that address items of historical
interest). All ACOG documents (eg, Committee Opinions and Practice Bulletins) may be found at the Clinical Guidance page at https://www.acog.org/clinical (click on "Clinical Guidance" at the top).
12. Authors whose manuscripts have been accepted for publication have the option to pay an article processing charge and publish open access. With this choice, articles are made freely available online immediately upon publication. An
information sheet is available at http://links.lww.com/LWW-ES/A48. The cost for publishing an article as open access can be found at https://wkauthorservices.editage.com/open-access/hybrid.html.
Please note that if your article is accepted, you will receive an email from the editorial office asking you to choose a publication route (traditional or open access). Please keep an eye out for that future email and be sure to respond to it promptly.
***
If you choose to revise your manuscript, please submit your revision through Editorial Manager at
http://ong.editorialmanager.com. Your manuscript should be uploaded in a word processing format such as Microsoft Word.
Your revision's cover letter should include the following:
* A confirmation that you have read the Instructions for Authors (http://edmgr.ovid.com/ong/accounts/authors.pdf), and
* A point-by-point response to each of the received comments in this letter.
If you submit a revision, we will assume that it has been developed in consultation with your co-authors and that each author has given approval to the final form of the revision.
***Again, your paper will be maintained in active status for 30 days from the date of this letter. If we have not heard from you by Aug 15, 2020, we will assume you wish to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration.***.
Sincerely,
Nancy C. Chescheir, MD Editor-in-Chief
2019 IMPACT FACTOR: 5.524
2019 IMPACT FACTOR RANKING: 6th out of 82 ob/gyn journals __________________________________________________
In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/ong/login.asp?a=r). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.
View Letter
4 of 4 7/23/2020, 3:39 PM
July 23
rd, 2020 Dear Dr. Chescheir,
We are submitting for your consideration our revised clinical commentary entitled, “Birth Behind Bars:
The need for labor support in the incarcerated population” (ONG-20-1413). We are grateful to you and the reviewers for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have incorporated this valuable feedback into our manuscript and we believe this piece is stronger as a result of these thorough and detailed comments. Our manuscript has been revised via tracked changes based on the reviewer’s
suggestions. This revision has been approved and developed in consultation with all co-authors. Our point by point response to the reviewers is listed below.
In response to the editors’ efforts to increase transparency, I confirm with: OPT-IN: Yes, please publish my point-by-point response letter. I have read the instructions for authors.
Thank you for your consideration of this revised manuscript. We believe this topic is especially relevant and will be of interest to readers of the Green Journal, where it has potential to encourage necessary discussions regarding policing and the carceral system in America.
Sincerely,
Carly Dahl, MD
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Northwestern University & John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County
REVIEWER COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1: The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss the importance of creating a policy that allows for continuous labor support for incarcerated pregnant persons." This is a current commentary.
1. The authors note that a way to achieve support during labor would be to "Allow continuous labor support by an individual of choice to all incarcerated pregnant persons." What type of screening would the "individual of choice" have to undergo before being allowed to provide support? Would they allow other incarcerated individuals to serve as the support person?
Thank you for this comment. Lines 101-103 reflect the suggested rules and regulations for the labor support person, which would comply with the prison/jail regulations for visitors. This section has also been edited to reflect that the labor support person could be screened in the same manner as visitors to the jail or prison, who typically fill out an application that must be approved by the jail or prison prior to visitation. This is the current process of our affiliated county jail within our labor support policy.
Although there are multiple methods to go about screening this person, we believe leaving this to the jurisdiction of the carceral system is the most appropriate approach as the hospital system otherwise does not screen visitors.
It is an interesting idea to have another incarcerated individual serve as the support person as it is very reasonable that bonds develop between incarcerated persons that would make this a considerable option, however we believe this would be significantly burdensome one the carceral system as they would need to either grant furlough to the support person in order to be released from jail/prison, or would need to observe this individual with additional staff, which would place likely undue burden on the officers, who are present for the patient themselves. Furthermore, if the labor support person must comply with all of the “visitor” rules, regulations, and screening processes, they would by default could not be an
incarcerated person, unfortunately.
2. The authors discuss "early release." Would this vary by the crime for which the patient is incarcerated? violent crime?
This is a very important point, thank you for this comment. The appropriateness of early release would need to be determined by the carceral system with consideration of the offense. However, one could argue that regardless of offense, including violent crime, being released near the end of the term is still
reasonable. For example, if an incarcerated person is serving an 18 month sentence, and is at month 6 of this sentence, they most likely would not be considered for early release. However, at month 17,
regardless of their offense (violence or not violent), it could be argued that the minimal significance of one more month, weighted against the significant benefits of unregulated labor support and childbirth and the baby’s disposition from the hospital, is irrelevant of the crime for which they are incarcerated if they are not a danger to themselves or others. Ultimately this is the decision of the carceral system but as physicians and healthcare team, we hope to advocate for early release when appropriate as we believe that this is best for the mother and for the baby, although special consideration must be placed on safety of early release and ensure that the pregnant person does have access to medical care when released.
This section has been edited to reflect the above comments.
Reviewer #2: This commentary makes a strong case for continuous labor support for pregnant persons in the prison system. The commentary is well written and addresses an important public health topic. The authors highlight the fact that women are the fastest growing population, 6-10% of women are pregnant at the time of incarceration, and vast majority of incarcerated pregnant persons experience childbirth alone.
They do a nice job highlighting that the exact same factors that increase a person's likelihood to be
incarcerated are often the same factors that increase likelihood for adverse pregnancy outcomes, perinatal
morbidity, and mortality. Incarcerated women are among the most marginalized women in our society and at high risk for poor outcomes.
I think this is an important commentary. I have a few thoughts.
1. I think the authors' use of the term "carceral system" rather than criminal justice system is appropriate. However, the term will likely not be familiar to readers of the Green Journal. I suggest explaining this term and why they chose not to refer to the criminal justice system.
Thank you for this comment. The manuscript has been reflected to include a description of the carceral system and the reason for which we chose to use this term in lines 49-61.
2. In the third paragraph the authors talk about structural racism and classism embedded within the carceral system. I believe this reflects larger social, economic, and political forces in society. The current language could be interpreted by some to limit racism and classism to the carceral system rather than recognizing that these are pervasive forces in all aspects of our society including the healthcare system.
This is an excellent point. Specific mention of this has been included in lines 59-61.
3. While I think a doula program makes a lot of sense for this population I worry about paying for these services. I would suggest the authors add more substance here. Are there innovative partnerships, payment models, etc that might be applied in this setting?
Thank you for this comment. There are multiple models for free doula support for incarcerated women, either through volunteer doula services, non-profit organizations who financially support doula
programs, or programs that operate based on community donations. Furthermore, Medicaid coverage for hospitalization now covers incarcerated persons, and many states are introducing legislation for
coverage of doula support by Medicaid. These initiatives are now mentioned in lines 145-156.
Reviewer #3: Thank you for your commentary on labor support for incarcerated people. This is such an important topic. The action steps you put forth for carceral systems to take are clear and well thought out.
Your introduction can be improved by including additional discussion on how this is incorporated into a human-rights framework. Additional attention to any legal references will also provide more robust evidence and support. The ACLU has done some work on this issue, as has the National Women's Law Center. Non-traditional/gray literature can be helpful for work like this that transcends traditional research boundaries.
Thank you for this comment. Lines 70-71 now reflect the additional argument that we believe this is a human rights violation (as is mentioned in the conclusion paragraph), however we hesitate to include the cited references provided below as they are opinions and written articles of the ACLU, not active
lawsuits. Furthermore, the references provided emphasize the importance of addressing maternal mental health for incarcerated persons but not labor support for this population. The Rebecca Project, although a reputable and helpful reference, also does not focus on labor support. While the framework of birth conditions as a human rights issue is necessary, we find that to fully address this topic is beyond the scope of this paper.
I think that not commenting on the impact coronavirus may have on this important issue is a disservice to
your manuscript and your readers. For example, in May New York allowed for the release of pregnant
inmates if their term was <6 months. I also think that additional thought is needed on how to address the
current BLM movement in respect to incarcerated pregnant people.
We agree the issue of COVID-19 highlights the inequity within the carceral system and also the urgency and desire for all mothers to have labor support (as observed in the flight of mothers to states outside of New York City when restrictive visitation regulations in hospitals were in effect). However, this focus of labor support for incarcerated persons was active prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and hope that the topic of labor support and its importance will persist beyond the current pandemic, and for this reason have opted to not introduce this into our discussion.
We believe our discussion of racial inequity within the paper that is omnipresent within the carceral system in the U.S. addresses the issues that are currently being highlighted by the BLM movement, however we have added vital statistics about the higher rate of incarceration for black women and the injustice in the carceral system for this specific population in lines 75-78 to emphasize this point, as it is critical to our argument of justice. Thank you for bringing this into focus.
I appreciate your attention to non-gendered language in the manuscript; we must remember that not all people who are pregnant identify as women.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-calls-release-pregnant- people-prisons-and-jails__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-
TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon-eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OkjNVgNu$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothersbehindbars2010.pdf__;!
!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon- eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OuWuTmP6$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/women-prison/no-one-should-be- forced-give-birth-alone-jail-cell__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-
TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon-eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6Op6oqNQs$
Line 54 - is there a reference to support this?
Thank you. A reference has now been added (ACOG Committee Opinion 511).
Line 66 - is there any evidence to back this up? Has anyone actually been successful in providing labor support for incarcerated people? I question how "easy" it is in the current carceral system.
Thank you for this comment. We understand the use of “easy” may not be the most reflective of the obstacles that are present in carceral systems, so this terminology has been removed. Although we have chosen to not highlight our specific institution in this paper, our county hospital recently changed policy to allow for continuous labor support for incarcerated persons (highlighted in the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/12/doulas-county-jail/603730/) and the programs mentioned are all initiatives that successfully allow for labor support via doula programs for incarcerated persons.
Line 68 - many L&D currently have restrictions on visitors due to COVID-19. Can/should these policies be duplicated for the long-term for incarcerated patients in labor?
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. The current COVID-19 pandemic has certainly made labor
support for non-incarcerated persons more restrictive, however these strict visitor policies remain more
liberal than those for our incarcerated patients. As this paper argues for simply the presence of one
individual as a support person, in theory these suggested allowances should comply to all pregnant
persons regardless of their status in the carceral system during this pandemic, unless the patient
themselves is COVID positive, in which case for the safety of the entire medical staff, patient, and labor support person, the hospital policy should be followed. We fear that additional mentions of restrictive policies related to COVID-19 would not aid in our argument and have chosen to not discuss these implications in the paper.
EDITOR COMMENTS:
We no longer require that authors adhere to the Green Journal format with the first submission of their papers. However, any revisions must do so. I strongly encourage you to read the instructions for authors (the general bits as well as those specific to the feature-type you are submitting). The instructions provide guidance regarding formatting, word and reference limits, authorship issues and other relevant
topics. Adherence to these requirements with your revision will avoid delays during the revision process by avoiding re-revisions on your part in order to comply with formatting.
Numbers below refer to line numbers.
40. Do not begin a sentence with a numeral. Either spell out or edit your sentence to avoid the need to start w/ a number.
Thank you, this has been corrected.
43. For clarity, this shackling prohibition is for labor, correct? This is unclear because on line 45 your say
“pregnant persons in county jails may still be shackled” which reads as if the shackling prohibition you are discussing at this point relates to shackling at any time.
Thank you for your comment. The federal shackling prohibition does specify that pregnant persons may not, any point within the pregnancy, be shackled and that this prohibition is not just limited to labor. Our hope with this statement is to emphasize while federal laws apply to federal prisons, many individual states and jails will not follow this mandate.
48. Why are you pointing out here “Unshackled” status? The statement is true for those in states that allow shackling in labor in non-federal prisons or jails, isn’t it?
Thank you. This specification was incorrect and has been removed.
49. Please avoid using the word “monumental” twice in 3 sentences.
This has been corrected.
50. I think you should also mention nurses here, who spend a lot more time in the room than do obstetricians during labor.
This is an excellent point and has now been edited.
One reviewer commented that you should mention COVID-19 issues in your paper. If you wish to do so, by all means do. I do not believe it is a required change.
We have opted not to include the COVID-19 pandemic in this paper for reasons described above.
EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS:
1. The Editors of Obstetrics & Gynecology are seeking to increase transparency around its peer-review process, in line with efforts to do so in international biomedical peer review publishing. If your article is accepted, we will be posting this revision letter as supplemental digital content to the published article online. Additionally, unless you choose to opt out, we will also be including your point-by-point response to the revision letter. If you opt out of including your response, only the revision letter will be posted.
Please reply to this letter with one of two responses:
A. OPT-IN: Yes, please publish my point-by-point response letter.
2. Obstetrics & Gynecology uses an "electronic Copyright Transfer Agreement" (eCTA). When you are ready to revise your manuscript, you will be prompted in Editorial Manager (EM) to click on "Revise Submission." Doing so will launch the resubmission process, and you will be walked through the various questions that comprise the eCTA. Each of your coauthors will receive an email from the system
requesting that they review and electronically sign the eCTA.
Please check with your coauthors to confirm that the disclosures listed in their eCTA forms are correctly disclosed on the manuscript's title page.
The disclosures are correctly listed.
3. Standard obstetric and gynecology data definitions have been developed through the reVITALize initiative, which was convened by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the members of the Women's Health Registry Alliance. Obstetrics & Gynecology has adopted the use of the reVITALize definitions. Please access the obstetric data definitions
at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.acog.org/practice-management/health-it-and-clinical- informatics/revitalize-obstetrics-data-definitions__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-
TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon-eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OrmYxVRF$ and the gynecology data definitions at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.acog.org/practice-
management/health-it-and-clinical-informatics/revitalize-gynecology-data-
definitions__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon- eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OokvRy9V$ . If use of the reVITALize definitions is problematic, please discuss this in your point-by-point response to this letter.
There are no conflicts with the revitalize definitions.
4. Because of space limitations, it is important that your revised manuscript adhere to the following length restrictions by manuscript type: Current Commentary articles should not exceed 12 typed, double-spaced pages (3,000 words). Stated page limits include all numbered pages in a manuscript (i.e., title page, précis, abstract, text, references, tables, boxes, figure legends, and print appendixes) but exclude references.
Word count for this piece is 1941.
5. Specific rules govern the use of acknowledgments in the journal. Please note the following guidelines:
* All financial support of the study must be acknowledged.
* Any and all manuscript preparation assistance, including but not limited to topic development, data collection, analysis, writing, or editorial assistance, must be disclosed in the acknowledgments. Such acknowledgments must identify the entities that provided and paid for this assistance, whether directly or indirectly.
* All persons who contributed to the work reported in the manuscript, but not sufficiently to be authors,
must be acknowledged. Written permission must be obtained from all individuals named in the
acknowledgments, as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions. Please note that your response in the journal's electronic author form verifies that permission has been obtained from all named persons.
* If all or part of the paper was presented at the Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or at any other organizational meeting, that presentation should be noted (include the exact dates and location of the meeting).
The paper is compliant with the above guidelines.
6. Provide a short title of no more than 45 characters (40 characters for case reports), including spaces, for use as a running foot.
The short title is: Birth Behind Bars
7. The most common deficiency in revised manuscripts involves the abstract. Be sure there are no inconsistencies between the Abstract and the manuscript, and that the Abstract has a clear conclusion statement based on the results found in the paper. Make sure that the abstract does not contain information that does not appear in the body text. If you submit a revision, please check the abstract carefully.
In addition, the abstract length should follow journal guidelines. The word limit for Current Commentary articles is 250 words. Please provide a word count.
The word count for the abstract is 106.
8. Only standard abbreviations and acronyms are allowed. A selected list is available online
at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edmgr.ovid.com/ong/accounts/abbreviations.pdf__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF 93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon-
eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OhJO7i_9$ . Abbreviations and acronyms cannot be used in the title or précis. Abbreviations and acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used in the abstract and again in the body of the manuscript.
Noted.
9. The journal does not use the virgule symbol (/) in sentences with words. Please rephrase your text to avoid using "and/or," or similar constructions throughout the text. You may retain this symbol if you are using it to express data or a measurement.
This has been edited.
10. ACOG is moving toward discontinuing the use of "provider." Please replace "provider" throughout your paper with either a specific term that defines the group to which are referring (for example,
"physicians," "nurses," etc.), or use "health care professional" if a specific term is not applicable.
This has been edited.
11. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) documents are frequently
updated. These documents may be withdrawn and replaced with newer, revised versions. If you cite
ACOG documents in your manuscript, be sure the reference you are citing is still current and available. If
the reference you are citing has been updated (ie, replaced by a newer version), please ensure that the new
version supports whatever statement you are making in your manuscript and then update your reference
list accordingly (exceptions could include manuscripts that address items of historical interest). If the
reference you are citing has been withdrawn with no clear replacement, please contact the editorial office for assistance ([email protected]). In most cases, if an ACOG document has been withdrawn, it should not be referenced in your manuscript (exceptions could include manuscripts that address items of historical interest). All ACOG documents (eg, Committee Opinions
and Practice Bulletins) may be found at the Clinical Guidance page
at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.acog.org/clinical__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1 K-TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon-eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OuEjLqdx$ (click on
"Clinical Guidance" at the top).
Noted.
12. Authors whose manuscripts have been accepted for publication have the option to pay an article processing charge and publish open access. With this choice, articles are made freely available online immediately upon publication. An information sheet is available
at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://links.lww.com/LWW-
ES/A48__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon- eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OpvZW1zB$ . The cost for publishing an article as open access can be found at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wkauthorservices.editage.com/open-
access/hybrid.html__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!Hva1K-
TPzfsB1eXuWNqrjWqGcMFmn3xjRon-eTBqIcZ6L6KPugMRd5OpGA2E72I6OmRpxULI$ .
Please note that if your article is accepted, you will receive an email from the editorial office asking you
to choose a publication route (traditional or open access). Please keep an eye out for that future email and
be sure to respond to it promptly.