Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 18, 2020
Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor

PONE-D-20-07803

Practice assistants´ perceived mental work load: a cross-sectional study with 550 German participants addressing work content, stressors, resources, and organizational structure

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hoffmann,

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.

Your manuscript has been assessed by an acknowledged expert in the field covered by the study. You will find below (see the appended comments) that the valuation of the paper contents has been really positive (most of the comments are relatively minor; please also see the sanitized copy of the paper attached to the review report). Nevertheless, and apart from the aforementioned issues, the English writing of the paper needs serious revisions ir order to consider the paper for acceptance in PLOS ONE. My suggestion to the authors is to summit is to a proofread carried out by a professional (or native) translator.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

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

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

2.  We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. 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.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 manuscript is full of typography errors; punctuations,

2. Language is main problem

3. Not consistent throughout the document

4. Don’t use abbreviation in the abstract part

5. In the background part there are incomplete sentences

6. In tables the decimal places should be consistent

7. In the table reporting missing value is not necessary

**********

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

[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.]

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

Revision 1

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

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

Answer: Our manuscript now meets all style requirements.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Answer: The manuscript was proofread by a professional medical translator (Sarah Chalmers; https://www.medi-translate.com/)

3. 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.

Answer: The data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions and data protection issues as our dataset includes potentially identifying information.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Answer: A reference to Figure 1 is now included (line 208).

“As illustrated in Fig 1, the comparison of our results with data from Nolting et al. [8] revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) for the following factors: versatility (3.6 vs. 3.8), completeness of task (3.5 vs. 3.6), scope of action (3.4 vs. 3.8), social support (4.0 vs. 3.7), cooperation (3.6 vs. 3.4), qualitative work demands (2.2 vs. 2.1), works disruptions (2.7 vs. 2.4), information and participation (3.6 vs. 3.3), and benefits (2.9 vs. 2.4).”

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Answer: A reference to Table 4 is now included (line 221).

“Table 4 shows a comparison of PrAs in our study population (from 2014) and the comparative study population (from 2000).”

[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

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

Reviewer #1: 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

Answer: The data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions and data protection issues as our dataset includes potentially identifying information.

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

Answer: The manuscript was proofread by a certified medical translator.

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 manuscript is full of typography errors; punctuations.

Answer: The manuscript was proofread by a professional medical translator.

2. Language is main problem

Answer: The manuscript was proofread by a professional medical translator.

3. Not consistent throughout the document

Answer: The manuscript was proofread by a professional medical translator.

4. Don’t use abbreviation in the abstract part

Answer: This was corrected.

5. In the background part there are incomplete sentences

Answer: This was corrected.

6. In tables the decimal places should be consistent

Answer: This was corrected in Tables 1, 2,3 and 4.

7. In the table reporting missing value is not necessary

Answer: This was corrected in Tables 1 and 2.

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

Answer to reviewer comment concerning response rate

Reviewer comment: “Statistically how it can be generalized with around 30% non-response rate?

Answer: The argument in our sentence was incorrect. The total study had a response rate of 70% of practices. Within the practices, nearly all physicians and practice assistants participated indicating a high interest in the topic.

The text was revised to: It is a strength of our study that it was based on a data set with a large number of participants (550 PrAs). Also, prior analyses had shown that the practice network from which this sample was taken is representative for German primary care practices.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor

PONE-D-20-07803R1

Practice assistants´ perceived mental work load: A cross-sectional study with 550 German participants addressing work content, stressors, resources, and organizational structure

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hoffmann,

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.

Our reviewer has positively valued the set of revisions you have done on the manuscript during the past round of revisions. However, some very minor changes and amendments need your attention. Please refer to both the comments appended below and the file attached by our reviewer. In case the revisions done in your resubmission were accurate and well-detailed, I will proceed to make an editorial decision without the need of a new round of reviews.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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: No

**********

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: 1. The manuscript has typography errors which are highlighted in the pdf file.

2. On the result section of the manuscript I have a great concern with the response rate which is 70.3%. Statistically this will have an impact on the power and it needs clear justification.

3. Table 1 and 2 some continuous variables are presented in the table as mean and median, which is not acceptable, please remove all continuous variables (age, work experiences, Number of Number of physicians in practice, and Number of PrAs in practice) from the table and narrate the findings.

4. With regard to missing data; it needs clear justification on, how did you manage missing data. As you described in table 1 and table 2 you have variable with missing values.

5. In the reference section: When you write references like reference number 6: “Wagner A, Rieger MA, Manser T, Sturm H, Hardt J, Martus P, et al. Healthcare professionals'perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019; 19: 53. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7.” You write the journal name in abbreviated form, but on the other reference like reference number 10: “Theorell T, Hammarstrom A, Aronsson G, Traskman Bendz L, Grape T, Hogstedt C, et al. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1954-4.” you write the journal in full. So, your references should be uniform and journal names better to be in full description.

**********

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

[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.]

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

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-07803_R1_reviewer.pdf
Revision 2

Dear Dr. Useche,

Please find our revision and answers regarding the additional comments of reviewer 1. We hope that the revision made will adequately address the open points.

Best regards,

Jan Hoffmann

Reviewers´ comments:

1. The manuscript has typography errors which are highlighted in the pdf file.

Answer: Thank you for highlighting the typography errors. We corrected them accordingly.

2. On the result section of the manuscript I have a great concern with the response rate which is 70.3%. Statistically this will have an impact on the power and it needs clear justification.

Answer: We performed a power calculation using the software G-Power 3.1 for both group comparisons to show appropriate sample sizes.

Line 176-178:

“Power calculations were performed using the software G-Power 3.1 to determine the appropriateness of sample sizes used in the group comparisons.”

Line 206-208:

“The power calculation revealed that the sample sizes compared (n=550 versus n=8.121) were sufficient to achieve 80% power to detect small effect sizes of d = 0.12. In the case of greater differences, the power achieved was even higher.”

Line 226-228:

“The power calculation revealed that the sample sizes compared (n=550 versus n=324) were sufficient to achieve 80% power to detect small effect sizes of d = 0.2. In the case of greater differences, the power achieved was even higher.”

Considering our study population, we also feel very comfortable with a response rate of 70%. Struggles to achieve high response rates in similar populations are reported elsewhere:

Redaèlli M, Bassüner S, Teschner D, Stock S. Practice nurses can do more: Online surveys of VERAH-graduates and practice owners. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin. 2014; 90: 517–22. doi: 10.3238/zfa.2014.0517-0522.

Mergenthal K, Beyer M, Güthlin C, Gerlach FM. Evaluation des VERAH-Einsatzes in der Hausarztzentrierten Versorgung in Baden-Württemberg. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 2013; 107:386–93. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.07.003 PMID: 24075680.

3. Table 1 and 2 some continuous variables are presented in the table as mean and median, which is not acceptable, please remove all continuous variables (age, work experiences, Number of Number of physicians in practice, and Number of PrAs in practice) from the table and narrate the findings.

Answer: We do not see a contradiction in mixing continuous variables and categorical variables in Tables 1 and 2. For clarification, we would like to maintain these variables in the table as has been done in other PLOS ONE publications on cross-sectional studies (e.g., Dubois J, Bill A-S, Pasquier J, Keberle S, Burnand B, Rodondi P-Y. Characteristics of complementary medicine therapists in Switzerland: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14:e0224098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224098 PMID: 31644559)

4. With regard to missing data; it needs clear justification on, how did you manage missing data. As you described in table 1 and table 2 you have variable with missing values.

Answer: The management of missing data is described in line 161-162:

“Non-plausible values were recoded as missing values. Missing data were managed by reporting valid percentages only.”

In Table 1 and 2 variables with missing data are corrected. Now, only valid percentages are reported. For all variables, the number of analyzed answers is stated in brackets for clarification.

5. In the reference section: When you write references like reference number 6: “Wagner A, Rieger MA, Manser T, Sturm H, Hardt J, Martus P, et al. Healthcare professionals'perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019; 19: 53. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7.” You write the journal name in abbreviated form, but on the other reference like reference number 10: “Theorell T, Hammarstrom A, Aronsson G, Traskman Bendz L, Grape T, Hogstedt C, et al. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1954-4.” you write the journal in full. So, your references should be uniform and journal names better to be in full description.

Answer:

Thank you for your comment. We checked all references to make sure that they are cited uniformly with full description of journal names.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor

Practice assistants´ perceived mental workload: A cross-sectional study with 550 German participants addressing work content, stressors, resources, and organizational structure

PONE-D-20-07803R2

Dear Dr. Hoffmann,

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,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor

PONE-D-20-07803R2

Practice assistants´ perceived mental workload: A cross-sectional study with 550 German participants addressing work content, stressors, resources, and organizational structure

Dear Dr. Hoffmann:

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. Sergio A. Useche

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 .