Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-01555 Indigenous Australian women's experiences of participation in cervical screening PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Butler: 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 note that we feel that all of the reviewers comments require your attention. Additional comments have also been added by the Editor. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by April 24, 2020. 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:
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, Nelly Oelke Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Page 8: Lines 157-158: It is no clear who did the other interviews in other PHCCs in the data collection section. Page 8: Lines 160-162: The last two sentences in the recruitment section need to be moved to data collection. Page 8: Lines 164-165: How were Indigenous women involved and how did they lead the study? Page 9: Line 173: Suggest removing the reference to Table 1 here as it is not the survey and move Table 1 to the results. Page 11: Line 200: Please add the version of NVivo. Page 12: Results section – in identifying the age group of the woman in the quote, could this be potentially identifiable, particularly those that are employed at PHCCs? And I am not sure it adds a lot. Page 25: Lines 549-551: The table and text regarding recommendations should be part of the results, not including the actual data in the conclusion or discussion. 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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist." We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Wuchopperen Health Service Pty Ltd. 1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 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: Yes ********** 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: A clear articulation and analysis using a colonisation/power framework would add real strength to the information being reported in this paper. The majority of barriers to Indigenous women’s participation in cervical screening are system levels factors and so a more robust and nuanced discussion of the significance of these barriers as they relate to this study would greatly add to the paper overall. Five of the 6 key themes identified from the findings relate to system ‘failures’ but are not discussed as such. The role of system-level factors in perpetuating unmet need, discrimination and health service racism have all been extensively documented in other studies and are key areas which should be fully elaborated on as relevant context for these findings. In other places, the paper would be better served if again, the text was re-written to reflect system failures, for example, both the abstract and the introduction note ‘Many Indigenous Australian women do not regularly participate in cervical screening which contributes to high cervical cancer incidence and mortality.’ This implies that Indigenous women are at fault when in fact it is the screening programme which has not served them as evidenced by high cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates. Table 2 should be inserted and referred to at the beginning of the ‘Discussion’ section not put in as part of the conclusion. Reviewer #2: REVIEWER COMMENTS ---------------- The manuscript focuses on 50 Indigenous Australian women who have undergone cervical screening within the last five years from five PHCCs. The researchers have chosen a culturally-appropriate information gathering (i.e. data collection) method of yarning to identify the main themes focused around cervical screening. Recommendations for healthcare providers were also provided. ---------------- Biggest Concern The researchers have used a culturally-appropriate research method through `yarning` to empower the voices of the Indigenous women. To continue culturally-appropriate engagement with the Indigenous women: 1. Were the final six themes or recommendations (Table 2) validated by the participating women? 2. How were the women involved in the `analysis` or decision-making process for consensus of the final themes and recommendations? If not, are there plans to engage the women to provide them with the findings or to include them in the finalization of recommendations? Please make sure to address how the participants were engaged throughout the research process. If there was no engagement past the `yarning`, please include this within the limitations. ---------------- Participants and Recruitment Lines 157 – 162 should be included in Data Collection as it is not part of Participants and Recruitment. Researchers state that initially the aim was to yarn with 10 women at each participating PHCC; however, they state that more women than expected were recruited. It also mentions that data saturation was achieved within each PHCC (Lines 158 – 161). 1. How many women were included (i.e. yarned with) from each PHCC? 2. What is the meaning of data saturation being achieved within each PHCC? 3. Were the participants representative across the five PHCCs? Researchers also mention that in one PHCC, trained staff members conducted yarns. Who interviewed the women at the other four PHCCs? Why were staff members from the other PHCCs not trained to conduct the yarns? As well, Lines 184 – 188; there is no mention that staff of the one PHCC were included in conducting the yarns. There is mention that there were pre-existing relationships between two research officers. Were there pre-existing relationships with the women and staff of PHCC? ---------------- Data Collection Table 1 includes both demographic and health survey data. The results discuss HPV vaccination (Lines 227 – 229); however, this is not included in Table 1. 1. Are the health survey data included Table 1? It seems that only the demographic data has been included. 2. I would suggest that Table 1 be moved to the Results discussion. As well, if there are missing data or data not shown in the manuscript (i.e. HPV vaccination) to include this within Table 1 or a separate table or mention that the data is not shown. Please ensure that all data collected and discussed has been included within the manuscript. ---------------- Conclusions The recommendations (Table 2) should be introduced as part of the Results section (not the Conclusions section). 1. Please include who was involved in the consensus or decision-making process for the final recommendations provided. ---------------- Minor Changes Line 56: the incidence has decreased by more than half. Please change the wording. Line 82: Change of to for Line 82 – 83: ``a similar pattern …``: this sentence is unclear. Line 139: Suggest to change Method to RESEARCH METHODS Line 145; Line 223: Add reference for the Screening Matters project Line 230: Suggest to clarify that the themes are identified from analysis of the yarns Line 325: Use double quotation marks to keep consistency throughout the manuscript - “down there” Line 384: Italicize or use quotation for Women’s Business instead of capitalizing. Line 396: Use the full term for GP (although a common abbreviation, abbreviations should be introduced prior to use). ********** 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 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. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-20-01555R1 Indigenous Australian women's experiences of participation in cervical screening PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Butler: 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 see notes in the review section. All comments must be addressed. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by July 14, 2020. 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:
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, Nelly Oelke Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for submitting your revised paper. For the most part, revisions have addressed the concerns of reviewers. There still seem to be a few outstanding issues to be addressed along with a few minor edits required. 1. On page 9, Line 177, "understanding" should be "understand" 2. On page 10, Line 199, you state that you recruited both screened and unscreened women to participate. But the study reports only screened women were recruited or at the least that this data set only includes data from screened women. This needs to be clarified at the very least in the number of places where you differentiate between the two. But more so, if you have data from non-screened women, should these voices not also be reported? 3. On page 18, Line 314, "to be" should be changed to "for the." 4. With regards to Table 2, I think it should be in the discussion as you suggest, but think that it would be better placed after the discussion of your analyzed data. Discussions are generally written with the discussion of the data first, and then provide recommendations. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: N/A [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. |
Revision 2 |
Indigenous Australian women's experiences of participation in cervical screening PONE-D-20-01555R2 Dear Dr. Butler, 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, Nelly Oelke Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-01555R2 Indigenous Australian women's experiences of participation in cervical screening Dear Dr. Butler: 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. Nelly Oelke Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .