Willingness to engage in and current status of social participation among Chinese merchant sailors

Huarong Wang; Yuheng He; Licheng Shi; Jiali Wang; Lvqing Miao; Jiajun Dai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242888

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 28, 2020
5 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Isabel Novo-Cortí, Editor PONE-D-20-23544 Willingness to engage in and current status of social participation among Chinese merchant sailors PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 read the comments of the reviewers carefully and try to follow them. Particularly the ones related to the PLOS Data policy. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 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, Isabel Novo-Cortí 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. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'All participates provided informed consent to participate in the study. Approval for the research was obtained from the Nantong University Academic Ethics Committee prior to the study. Participants were guaranteed anonymity and that their answers would remain confidential. The study took about 10 to 15 minutes to complete for each participant.' a. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. Additional Editor Comments: Please read the comments of the reviewers carefully and try to follow them. Particularly the ones related to the PLOS Data policy indicated by the reviewer 1 (which 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). [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: 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: 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: Having reviewed this research article, in my opinion, it satisfies the following criteria: 1. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and the integrity of the research. 2. The article adheres to the appropriate reporting guidelines and standards for data availability. 3. The study presents the results of an original investigation. 4. The article is presented in an intelligible manner and is written in standard English. 5. The article is technically sound, supported by well-conducted statistical analysis. 6. The research methods described in section 2 of this article, using statistical analyzes, are carried out with a high technical level and are described in sufficient detail and rigorously. 7. The results described in section 3 of this article contain many data that provide much information, not published elsewhere. Authors should be instructed to carry out a “Minor Review” of: 8. The conclusions of section 5 of this article, which should explain whether or not the hypotheses raised in this research are confirmed and propose future lines of research that expand and improve the data obtained in this article. 9. The authorizations granted, given that the data obtained in this investigation, are not completely available, applying some restrictions, which may be within the exceptions contemplated by the PLOS policy, given the peculiarities of China. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Your research is of interest and it could have some major implications. That's why it's very important to emphasize the practical implications and to suggest some measures to achieve the proposed objectives: - lines 341-343 - how do you suggest to encourage to keep in touch? - lines 344-347 - by which means government could improve awareness? - lines 359-362 - how LUCS and CIN could attract sailors to join? Kind regards, ****** 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:** JOSÉ ÁNGEL FRAGUELA-FORMOSO 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.] 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242888.r001
Revision 1
1 Nov 2020 Author Response Dr. Isabel Novo-Cortí Academic Editor, PLOS ONE em@editorialmanager.com November 2, 2020 Dear Dr. Novo- Cortí, Thanks to you and the reviewers for your consideration of our manuscript PONE-D-20-23544, titled “Willingness to engage in and current status of social participation among Chinese merchant sailors”. We were pleased to see the generally positive reviews and are happy to revise the paper in response to the comments. We believe the manuscript is improved as a result of the peer review. 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 Thank you, we’ve checked our manuscript fully and make sure it meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Thank you. We’ve added the questionnaire (including both Chinese version and English version) in the additional information. 3. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'All participates provided informed consent to participate in the study. Approval for the research was obtained from the Nantong University Academic Ethics Committee prior to the study. Participants were guaranteed anonymity and that their answers would remain confidential. The study took about 10 to 15 minutes to complete for each participant.' a. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the informed consent of the participants, considering the large number of sailors that need to be investigated in our research, we requested the help of the National Maritime Safety Administration, and with its support, arranged its 13 local maritime safety bureaus to help us to organize local shipping companies to participate survey. The shipping companies informed their sailors of this information about participating in the investigation. Our research assistants introduced to the sailors the purpose and specific requirements of the investigation, and clearly informed the principle of voluntary participation in the research.Only the sailors who agreed to participate in the survey stayed, and the research assistants would guide him/them to fill out the questionnaire, while those who didn’t agree to participate in the study can leave without filling in the questionnaire. Considering the large number of people participating in the survey, this study adopted the method of verbal informed consent. b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. Thank you for your suggestion.We’ve added it. Additional Editor Comments: Please read the comments of the reviewers carefully and try to follow them. Particularly the ones related to the PLOS Data policy indicated by the reviewer 1 (which 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). Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we’ve added all data underlying the findings described in the manuscript as supporting information. [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: Partly 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: 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: 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: Having reviewed this research article, in my opinion, it satisfies the following criteria: 1. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and the integrity of the research. 2. The article adheres to the appropriate reporting guidelines and standards for data availability. 3. The study presents the results of an original investigation. 4. The article is presented in an intelligible manner and is written in standard English. 5. The article is technically sound, supported by well-conducted statistical analysis. 6. The research methods described in section 2 of this article, using statistical analyzes, are carried out with a high technical level and are described in sufficient detail and rigorously. 7. The results described in section 3 of this article contain many data that provide much information, not published elsewhere. Thanks for your positive feedback– no response required. Authors should be instructed to carry out a “Minor Review” of: 8. The conclusions of section 5 of this article, which should explain whether or not the hypotheses raised in this research are confirmed and propose future lines of research that expand and improve the data obtained in this article. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Due to the lack of previous evidence, we designed an exploratory study and didn’t propose any hypotheses(we mentioned in section 1: introduction). However, our research provides a meaningful empirical basis for future related research, and we added this part of information in the conclusion section. 9. The authorizations granted, given that the data obtained in this investigation, are not completely available, applying some restrictions, which may be within the exceptions contemplated by the PLOS policy, given the peculiarities of China. Thank you for your suggestion, we’ve provided all the data as supporting information. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Your research is of interest and it could have some major implications. That's why it's very important to emphasize the practical implications and to suggest some measures to achieve the proposed objectives: - lines 341-343 - how do you suggest to encourage to keep in touch? Good question. We’ve added more information in the manuscript about the suggestion to encourage sailors to keep in touch with society. - lines 344-347 - by which means government could improve awareness? Thank you for your valuable question. we mentioned several ways that the government can take to improve people’s awareness of social participation in our manuscript, including improving the cognitive level of public participation, optimizing social participation in the system environment, broadening the ways in which individuals can participate, promoting better policies for social participation, and promoting the civil rights for all citizens(In line 356-365). - lines 359-362 - how LUCS and CIN could attract sailors to join? Good question. We’ve added more detailed information to the manuscript. In summary, we have made substantial revisions in response to all reviews. We believe the manuscript is improved as a result and thank the reviewers and editor for their suggestions. We look forward to hearing your editorial decision in due course. Sincerely, Huarong Wang, PhD Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242888.r002
11 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Isabel Novo-Cortí, Editor Willingness to engage in and current status of social participation among Chinese merchant sailors PONE-D-20-23544R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Isabel Novo-Cortí Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242888.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Isabel Novo-Cortí, Editor PONE-D-20-23544R1 Willingness to engage in and current status of social participation among Chinese merchant sailors Dear Dr. Wang: 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. Isabel Novo-Cortí Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242888.r004

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 .