PONE-D-19-21375

Long-term tracking demonstrates effectiveness of a partnership-led training program to advance the careers of biomedical researchers from underrepresented groups

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. O'Connell,

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 revise your manuscript accordingly to both reviewers comments. In particular, grammatical  errors and term consistency.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 01 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cesario Bianchi

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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure(s) in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr O´Connell:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript that was revised by 2 experts. Before I can make a final decision, I need that you revised the manuscript accordingly the both reviewers comments.

In particular, there are issues with grammar and some terms used (consistency). Please revise the manuscript and answer all questions raised.

[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: Partly

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: Yes

**********

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: 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: Lines 57 – 63

One of several CRCHD programs with the goal of increasing ethnic/racial individual participation in the pipeline is the Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equities (PACHE) program which has as its objective to “enable institutions serving underserved health disparity populations and underrepresented students and NCI-designated Cancer Centers (CCs) to train scientists from diverse backgrounds in cancer research and to effectively deliver cancer advances to underserved communities” [11, 12] Make this 2 sentences; it’s a run-on

Lines 71 – 75

Introduction

First, we examine how well the goal of developing diverse leaders in cancer research and cancer health disparities is being met by examining the long-term outcomes of our trainees. Then we examine the association between career decisions made by trainees and involvement in specific activities. Finally, we show how trainees’ dissertations are linked to cancer and health disparities. How do these 3 major research objectives align with the stated goals listed in the abstract?

General Note

Be consistent throughout the paper with use of the terms “racial and ethnic minority”, “ethnic/racial minority”, “minorities”, “underrepresented groups”, “underrepresented populations”, “underrepresented individuals”

Lines 99 – 101

In addition, the students experienced social relationships not only with each other, but also with a cohort of interns from around the country who came to Fred Hutch to learn about research, graduate/medical school education, and professional development. Were these “social relationships” passive or actively and structurally facilitated? If the latter, please describe and discuss the impact on the student

Lines 116 – 118

Such support activities included workshops in writing personal statements for entrance into advanced training, peer review of abstracts and papers, and intensive mentoring. It would be helpful to hear more about this intensive mentoring and what it consisted of

Line 136

Use of “We” in first person seems out of place

Lines 173 – 174

Table 1 presents the number of undergraduate and graduate students within the NMSU colleges that have faculty who participate in the Partnership. Why is mention of “…that have faculty who participate in the Partnership” relevant? This is not clear

Table 2

List what “UG” means under table

Discussion

In general, the manuscript reports “outcomes” not “evidence”, explicit factors or components of their programming which supports the outcomes of their trainees

There is no mention of varied degree completion rates among undergraduate and graduate students outlined in Table 3, i.e., potential factors, either self-reported or hypotheses, that contributed to this and how this could be addressed moving forward

There needs to be more direct evidence provided about how the program actively influenced persistence in biomedical research, specifically in relation to cancer relevant projects

Lines 290 – 292

We consider the graduate degree completion rates for participants in our undergraduate training programs to be respectable. Similarly, the graduate degree completion rates for participants in our graduate training programs are also very good: What does “respectable” mean, and how is “very good” being determined in comparison to what?

Lines 297 – 298

Further, long-term outcomes take time to mature. For us, it took approximately ten years to assess career progression. This is not an “assessment” as much as a report on outcomes

Lines 313 – 335

Refer to and leverage information provided here to help support claims made throughout the manuscript related to “evidence”

Lines 340 – 350

This information should have been included in the Introduction

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study, and I appreciate that it is longitudinal, as those are often not undertaken. Charts may add to understanding for readers as many numbers were reported.

Manuscript includes several of grammatical and punctuation errors. There are also a couple of places for more clarity. "We" is used throughout in places third person is more appropriate (e.g. line 63). Also, "its" is used often and seems awkward. Specific notes are below though not exhaustive.

Lines 58-59 needs commas

Lines 71-75 is confusing, needs rewording for clarity

Line 83 needs "primarily" or "predominately" added after "institution"

Line 86, "forms" to "is"

Line 94, usually "as follows" would be followed by a colon. May also want to add "First..." for the first described strategy to add clarity to paragraph.

Lines 102-103, excessively long. Add "undergraduate and graduate" before "students" on 102 and the clause after colon on 103 is not needed.

Line 126, "i.e." usually off-set by comma or parentheses, not colon.

Lines 141-142, too many "then" in process explanation (also appears elsewhere in manuscript. This could be more descriptive and clear.

Lines 152-156, multiple punctuation styles makes the sentence confusing

Line 195, "Individuals" should not be capitalized

Line 226-227, table title uses capital letter for each word

Lines 228-230, "who" and "which" should actually be "that" in both cases

Line 250 "resultant" is awkward in sentence and also the research scientists should be a "resultant" category

Line 259 ends with comma

Line 273 "have gone on" to "continued"

Line 274 needs a comma after "degrees"

Line 277 should have commas to offset "if not higher"

Line 294 under line number has weird symbol, maybe a track changes mark

Line 298 "us" to "this project" or other similar term--paper is too familiar

Lines 313-329 holds good information and examples, but comments would be more appropriate in results than discussion

Line 342 "on" to "of"

Reference 10, I think "D" is "Disparities" and pages need to be reviewed for proper citation notation

**********

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: Yes: Jabbar R. Bennett

Reviewer #2: Yes: Andrea M Zimmerman

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Long-term tracking demonstrates effectiveness of a partnership-led training program to advance the careers of biomedical researchers from underrepresented groups

PONE-D-19-21375R1

Dear Dr. O'Connell,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Cesario Bianchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. O´Connell,

Thank you for carefully revising the manuscript. It is an important work that I am glad to accept for publication in the revised version.

Reviewers' comments: