PONE-D-19-32209

Survey of awareness about radiation disasters among firefighters in a Japanese prefecture without nuclear power plants

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hayashida,

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 carefully and systematically addresses all the points raised by Reviewers 1 and 2 during the review process (see below).

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2020 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,

Emmanuel Manalo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Both reviewers note the merits of this paper, but they also point out some very important and necessary modification you need to make before this paper can be considered suitable for publication. So please go through their comments carefully and implement the changes they suggest systematically. I want to emphasize in particular Reviewer 1's comments about the need for a more comprehensive literature review: I myself think that your contextualization of this research within the existing pertinent research literature is very inadequate.

[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: Yes

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: No

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: No

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: 1, The authors conducted an important research to facilitate the understanding of the factors affecting individual’s attitudes/decisions towards radiation disaster response. I believe the study has broad impacts, and the results could help develop better disaster preparedness and response. However, the discussion about the intellectual merit of the paper is not enough. How the study would contribute to the existing knowledge of the factors affecting individual’s attitudes/decisions towards disaster preparedness and response is not fully discussed in the paper. I would urge the authors conduct a comprehensive literature review and elaborate the intellectual merits of the paper in both Introduction and Discussion sections.

2. From the lines 145 to 210, the authors explain the survey in detail, and I feel difficult to follow here. The content is helpful for readers to understand the research but also makes the paper tedious. Maybe the authors could find a good way to put it together. For example, the authors could stress some important points in the paper and put more detailed information in the supplemental document.

3. For the chi-square and ordinal logistic regression tests, I would urge the authors either inform the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis in the context of study or elaborate what do the results of tests interpret.

4. The discussion related to the results is not sufficient. Also, there are no clear conclusions relevant to the emerging literature. I would urge the authors to revisit some of the literature regarding individual’s attitudes/preferences towards policies of disaster planning and response and discuss how the results could contribute to the existing literature.

5, I suggest that the authors ask for a professional copy editing service. The paper could be greatly improved in terms of the language such as the use of voice, tense, article and the word choice. Also, a common problem is that some sentences are really long and become difficult to follow. The authors could break the long sentences down into several short sentences. I listed some examples that could be improved.

Page 1, line 31-36, line 36-37

Page 2, line 44-49

Page 3-4, line 63-67, line 69 ‘put it out’, line 73-74

Page 5, line 86-90

Page 6, line 97-99

Page 7, line 119-120 and line 121-122 are repetitive.

Page 7, line 121-128 I would suggest that the authors use an active voice instead of a passive voice here.

Reviewer #2: Authors describe a survey of awareness of firefighters for radiation disasters. Results of this survey are important and suggestive for dealing with radiation disasters. However some considerations and improvements in the manuscript will be required.

1. Profile of participants

In this paper, firefighters are classified into 5 categories. Are they engaged in general affairs? I think firefighting department may have the section responsible for special disaster for such as nuclear materials, chemical, biohazards. In this survey, descriptions about firefighters engaged in such works are needed.

2. Significance of survey in Nagasaki “without nuclear plants”

Authors describe Nagasaki as prefecture without nuclear plants. However Nagasaki severely suffered from atomic bomb in 1945. Many people in Nagasaki get intensive education from primary schools. In this point, Nagasaki is different from other prefectures in Japan. Some discussions about this point may be needed.

**********

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.

Survey of awareness of radiation disasters among firefighters in a Japanese prefecture without nuclear power plants

PONE-D-19-32209R1

Dear Dr. Hayashida,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Emmanuel Manalo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The authors addressed the comments and greatly improved the paper. The research is important because there are few studies regarding firefighters' preparedness for and awareness of regarding radiation disaster response. The paper has great potential and still has large room to be improved in terms of language. One suggestion for author's future writing is to use active voice instead of passive voice in scientific writing. For example, 'A questionnaire survey was carried out with 1,122 firefighters in three firefighting departments in Nagasaki Prefecture, which does not have nuclear power plants. In total, 920 questionnaires were returned, and the 784 that were valid were analysed (page 2, line 25-28)' could be improved as 'We conducted a questionnaire survey with 1,122 firefighters participated in three firefighting departments in Nagasaki Prefecture, where does not have nuclear power plants. In total, we received 920 questionnaires and analysed 784 questionnaires that were valid.' Another suggestion is to avoid very long sentences. For example, 'The 2018 White Paper on Fire Service [6], released after the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster, mentions future measures to be taken based on the disaster, referencing how certain health interventions, for example tests using whole-body counters, were given to firefighters on the emergency firefighting support teams involved in responding to the disaster to help reassure them. (page 7, line 138-142)' I would recommend to accept the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. 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