An institutional analysis of graduate outcomes reveals a contemporary workforce footprint for biomedical master’s degrees

Jack Hart; Caleb C. McKinney

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243153

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 21, 2020
1 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Amy Prunuske, Editor PONE-D-20-19103 An Institutional Analysis of Graduate Outcomes Reveals a Contemporary Workforce Footprint for Biomedical Master’s Degrees PLOS ONE Dear Dr. McKinney, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 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, Amy Prunuske Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for sharing your work. I encourage you to address the reviewers' comments. In particular, there were several suggestions that would strength the discussion. It would also be helpful to describe the demographics of your population, selection criteria for the programs, and average debt. Similar to the analysis that was done with the international and national graduates it would be interesting to know if there were any differences in the outcomes by gender or race. 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 [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: Partly ******** 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: 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: 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: This paper adds to the current work on biomedical science career paths and navigation and importantly focuses on programs for MS graduates, rather than PhDs. This is a segment that is missing in the current literature, and the authors do a nice job of describing the project and outlaying the results. Some areas to revise for clarity-- 1. Abstract line 3: "one to two year" instead of "one-two" 2. In some areas, it shows "masters degrees" or "Master's degrees" or "master's degrees" 3. Similarly, there are a lot of words that are often hyphenated "full-time" "short-term" "cross-functional" "long-term" 4. Introduction paragraph 1 sentence 2, "most" and "others" could be more specific. 5. Introduction paragraph 3 lines 1-3, need citation. If it is related to the rest of the paragraph, you could move up the [9] to end of the first sentence and then have a transitional word for sentence 2 to let the reader know these are tied together. 6. Tried to access citation 10 for question re: page 4, but the link in reference list goes to error. Question is about the NSF data--is this master's degrees in total or on the way to doctoral degree. Many institutions are now awarding MS on the way to PhD or if the student exits the program where previously they were only offering a PhD for full completion. 7. The link for citation 11 also does not open. 8. I would argue this is not a longitudinal study as there are two data collection points over a short time. Two years seems like a long time when conducting a study, but when it involves career paths, it is a very short time. This seems more like a repeated measures study. One should not expect a graduate to have changed careers (sectors or industries drastically or to have increased significantly in job responsibility) within 2 years of obtaining a master's degree. Where graduates initially go is key, as are useful skills obtained from graduate program. The point on p 10 re: using terminal MS programs as stepping stones is central to the authors' points. I would add that the workforce experience or capstone projects also allow the students to connect and network with industry leaders, which paves the way for the transition to a position and career path or perhaps connecting with someone who may fill the role of a mentor to the new graduate. 9. p6, line 6, more clear to say "(the definitions we used for these assignments are provided for reference in Table 1)." 10. In results section, chi square symbol is replaced with box. 11. A few places throughout need comma or have extra space. 12. p11, last line of first paragraph, replace "education" with "educator" or "teaching" for clarity 13. p12, last paragraph, is it that the graduates used jobs with research functions intentionally as gateway to other responsibilities or are those the only jobs a graduate with MS can access and then needs to gain experience before finding another job? 14. p13, line 4 "managerial" 15. p13, end of paragraph 1, internships give graduate opportunity to explore career but do not ensure they find career aligning with passions and goals. This is in part because internships are brief and have less responsibility and lower range of job tasks or that the student is still determining preferences and path. Also, jobs immediately after graduation or ones offered as internships are not often the ones students envision as long-term career. 16. p13, paragraph 2, line 6, "-level" not needed 17. p14, "were" not needed at end of next to last line of 1st paragraph. "with the remaining 8 pursuing...." 18. p14, paragraph 2, line 3, "of" not needed before "graduates" 19. p15, paragraph 2 line 1, add "visa" to "F1 student visa status" 20. Discussion is very brief. Were there any limitations to this study? More information on what to study next or important considerations needed. A point was made about this being important due to self-funding, but I would argue that if self-funded, it is important to the student this work be done but should be important to federal funding agencies and institutions if those are funding it. Additionally some work and programs are arguing the case that master's prepared graduates perform essential STEM functions and education should be financially supported. Last line about institutions needing to provide career development infrastructure and employer engagement--there is some research about the many institutions that do provide career development opportunities and resources. It may need to be revised or increased, but this statement indicates it is not being done. 21. p17 top line, '"is in line with" to "aligns with" Reviewer #2: This manuscript explores the significant issue around outcomes for students graduating with an MS degree from an academic medical center. In an era when many PhD graduates are pursuing a range of career outcomes, it begs the question whether for some of these careers, advanced study at the MS level would be a more direct route to the goal. This analysis helps to address this question, but a few improvements are suggested to the authors. • The manuscript begins with a statement of the results in the initial sentence. It would be better to frame the context of this work, the types of degrees earned in the biological sciences, and to define the terms terminal (vs. professional) MS degree. o Use of the word terminal implies PhD students who have left their doctoral programs and are now pursuing an MS. Is that the intended meaning? That would also influence the analyses looking at long term career goals. o Along these lines, some background of the 15 included degree-granting programs and the typical outcomes for which they try to prepare their graduates would be useful. Surely, not all MS degrees are created equal, with some focusing more on career outcomes immediately after graduation and others positioning graduates for further advanced study. • Figure 1 is drawn from NSF data, and readers are pointed toward NSF technical notes, but the reviewer advises inclusion of a brief statement indicating what types of institutions were included and what subfields are represented. • On page 7, the authors describe outcomes for 337 graduates across the programs with respect to the degrees they are currently pursuing. Given the stated goals upon matriculation, we would expect closer to 600 graduates in advanced degree programs. Reasons for the large discrepancy in the initial goals vs. the actual outcomes should be explored further in the discussion. • Some aspects of interpretation appear in the results and would be a better fit for the discussion, e.g. page 8 (last paragraph on page) and page 10 (top of page). • Page 9: change “very proportionate” to “proportional.” • Statistical outcomes – letter conversion introduced an error. Should the square boxes be replaced by chi-squared? • Do domestic and international graduates represent the same programs? How would this track back to the reviewer request for more information on goals for the graduates of each program? In other words, is the higher proportion of international grads heading to PhD programs in line with initially stated goals upon matriculation or program selection for MS programs that are more research-focused? • It would be helpful to know what sorts of career mentoring is available to students in each of the programs. It is briefly mentioned in a very specific case at the bottom of page 10, but further information on the sorts of assistance provided to the students and in which career domains would be helpful. This may help readers understand if certain outcomes are supported to a greater extent than others. • For the analysis looking at two year career status, can this be tracked back to initially stated career goals at the time of matriculation? Or were those data not yet collected for that cohort? Can it be provided for some of the graduates? o Also for these graduates who are in an advanced degree program after two years but not initially, is it possible to determine if there was an unsuccessful application cycle in between, thereby necessitating the gap year? • Figure 5c is probably adequate as text, but if there are no limits on figures, do not object to keeping it. • Recommend in the discussion spending some time thinking about the transferability of the findings and the relevance of this work in the overall context of the biomedical workforce. • The data are mentioned as being available with restrictions, and are provided as a supplemental dataset, but I defer to the editorial staff to determine if the restricted dataset meets publication requirements. Overall, these are interesting findings, and with a bit of clarification of terms and context as well as some of the more nuanced analyses suggested above, this work is likely to be of interest to the readers of PLoS One. ****** 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:** Andrea M Zimmerman 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.0243153.r001
Revision 1
1 Nov 2020 Author Response It is with great enthusiasm that we address the Editor and Reviewer comments for our manuscript: An Institutional Analysis of Graduate Outcomes Reveals a Contemporary Workforce Footprint for Biomedical Master’s Degrees. We believe that the revisions have greatly improved the paper, and we are so appreciative to you and to the reviewers for your thoughtful feedback. I would like to take this opportunity to address your and the reviewer’s comments below. My response to each comment is in bold. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We have carefully reformatted the manuscript to meet the PLOS ONE style requirements. In order to meet the style requirements and the reviewer comments, several figures were either created or modified to align with their reference in the text. We’ve also made additions to and rearrangements of the text to accommodate the Editor and Reviewer requests, and to adhere to the PLOS ONE style requirements. Additional Editor Comments: 1. In particular, there were several suggestions that would strength the discussion. We were happy to address those recommendations in our discussion section. We detail our responses to each of those points below. 2. It would also be helpful to describe the demographics of your population We’ve added a participants subsection in the Materials and Methods section where we describe the demographics of our population. Furthermore, we’ve generated a new figure 2 that illustrates the demographic breakdowns. 3. Selection criteria for the programs, We have added selection criteria for admissions to our graduate programs in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript. 4. Average debt. We analyzed average debt incurred by graduates of biomedical masters programs at private nonprofit institutions in the United States using publicly available datasets from the College Scorecard. We discuss a range of mean debt incurred in the discussion section and added a link to the publicly available raw data set in the references section. We’ve also tied in this discussion point with addressing item #20 from Reviewer 1 below. 5. Similar to the analysis that was done with the international and national graduates it would be interesting to know if there were any differences in the outcomes by gender or race. We have added a new figure 6 and accompanying addition to the results and discussions sections of the text that describe demographic differences among the outcomes. Reviewer #1 Comments: 1. Abstract line 3: "one to two year" instead of "one-two" We’ve made this correction. 2. In some areas, it shows "masters degrees" or "Master's degrees" or "master's degrees" We have standardized the use of master’s degree(s) throughout. When beginning a sentence or referring to a specific graduate program, we use Master’s. 3. Similarly, there are a lot of words that are often hyphenated "full-time" "short-term" "cross-functional" "long-term" We went through the manuscript and hyphenated those words throughout. 4. Introduction paragraph 1 sentence 2, "most" and "others" could be more specific. We’ve replaced “most” and “others” with actual metrics from our data. Also, this paragraph is now the last paragraph of the introduction section to accommodate reviewer feedback to add more background context to our findings in the introduction section. 5. Introduction paragraph 3 lines 1-3, need citation. If it is related to the rest of the paragraph, you could move up the [9] to end of the first sentence and then have a transitional word for sentence 2 to let the reader know these are tied together. We’ve incorporated this recommendation into that paragraph to more clearly tie the remarks in that paragraph to the indicated reference. 6. Tried to access citation 10 for question re: page 4, but the link in reference list goes to error. Question is about the NSF data--is this master's degrees in total or on the way to doctoral degree. Many institutions are now awarding MS on the way to PhD or if the student exits the program where previously they were only offering a PhD for full completion. We have corrected the link. For the IPEDS data set, awarded master's degrees are based on the completion of a program. In the Figure 1 legend, we have clarified how NSF defines awarded master’s degrees. 7. The link for citation 11 also does not open. We have corrected the link url. 8. I would argue this is not a longitudinal study as there are two data collection points over a short time. Two years seems like a long time when conducting a study, but when it involves career paths, it is a very short time. This seems more like a repeated measures study. One should not expect a graduate to have changed careers (sectors or industries drastically or to have increased significantly in job responsibility) within 2 years of obtaining a master's degree. Where graduates initially go is key, as are useful skills obtained from graduate program. The point on p 10 re: using terminal MS programs as stepping stones is central to the authors' points. I would add that the workforce experience or capstone projects also allow the students to connect and network with industry leaders, which paves the way for the transition to a position and career path or perhaps connecting with someone who may fill the role of a mentor to the new graduate. We agree with the reviewer that this is indeed a repeat measure study, and we have made the necessary modifications to the text. We also discuss longitudinal studies that we plan to pursue for future followup work in the Discussion section. Furthermore, the points made by the reviewer regarding internships as networking opportunities and mentored experiences are well received and have been incorporated into the discussion. 9. p6, line 6, more clear to say "(the definitions we used for these assignments are provided for reference in Table 1)." Thank you for this recommendation, we have amended the text accordingly. 10. In results section, chi square symbol is replaced with box. We will ensure that our symbols carry over in the final submission. 11. A few places throughout need comma or have extra space. We have performed a find function for these doubles spaces and have replaced them with a single space. 12. p11, last line of first paragraph, replace "education" with "educator" or "teaching" for clarity We have replaced “education” with “educator” for clarity. 13. p12, last paragraph, is it that the graduates used jobs with research functions intentionally as gateway to other responsibilities or are those the only jobs a graduate with MS can access and then needs to gain experience before finding another job? Great question. While our study did not assess first destination job satisfaction of employed graduates, we have explored the workforce implications of a cross-industry research footprint more in the discussion. We interpreted the research function footprint across industries as a valuable asset to the labor market. 14. p13, line 4 "managerial" We have replaced “manager level” with “managerial”) 15. p13, end of paragraph 1, internships give graduate opportunity to explore career but do not ensure they find career aligning with passions and goals. This is in part because internships are brief and have less responsibility and lower range of job tasks or that the student is still determining preferences and path. Also, jobs immediately after graduation or ones offered as internships are not often the ones students envision as long-term career. Thank you for these important insights. While we do think that internships are chosen in part due to career passions, we acknowledge that they also can be a pivotal step in the career exploration and goal formation process. We have modified the language of that paragraph of the results section to reflect the role of internships in career exploration. We have also explored the role of internships in more depth in the Discussion section. 16. p13, paragraph 2, line 6, "-level" not needed Thank you, “-level” has been removed. 17. p14, "were" not needed at end of next to last line of 1st paragraph. "with the remaining 8 pursuing...." We’ve made this correction. 18. p14, paragraph 2, line 3, "of" not needed before "graduates" We’ve made this correction. 19. p15, paragraph 2 line 1, add "visa" to "F1 student visa status" We’ve made this correction. 20. Discussion is very brief. Were there any limitations to this study? More information on what to study next or important considerations needed. A point was made about this being important due to self-funding, but I would argue that if self-funded, it is important to the student this work be done but should be important to federal funding agencies and institutions if those are funding it. Additionally some work and programs are arguing the case that master's prepared graduates perform essential STEM functions and education should be financially supported. Last line about institutions needing to provide career development infrastructure and employer engagement--there is some research about the many institutions that do provide career development opportunities and resources. It may need to be revised or increased, but this statement indicates it is not being done. Per the reviewers recommendations, we have added study limitations to the discussion. We have also explored the implications of our findings for funding opportunities. Lastly, regarding career development opportunities, we applaud the efforts that institutions have made. We were hoping that our findings would reinforce the need to sustain and increase capacity for these important institutional resources. We have modified the discussion to discuss our own career development programs and resources, acknowledge the efforts of other institutions, and to advocate for the value of institutional investment in these important career preparation resources. 21. p17 top line, '"is in line with" to "aligns with" We’ve made this correction. Reviewer #2 Comments: 1. The manuscript begins with a statement of the results in the initial sentence. It would be better to frame the context of this work, the types of degrees earned in the biological sciences, and to define the terms terminal (vs. professional) MS degree. We moved the first paragraph to the last paragraph in the introduction section in order for it to have better context. We also provide clarity that our master’s degrees analyzed in this manuscript are standalone master’s degree programs that are distinct from our PhD programs. We also clarify that our standalone masters programs share many similarities with Professional Science Masters degrees with regards to experiential learning opportunities and educational collaborations with industry employers. 2. Use of the word terminal implies PhD students who have left their doctoral programs and are now pursuing an MS. Is that the intended meaning? That would also influence the analyses looking at long term career goals. Thank you for bringing up this point. Our master’s programs are distinct from our PhD programs, and we have edited the introduction to clarify that distinction. 3. Along these lines, some background of the 15 included degree-granting programs and the typical outcomes for which they try to prepare their graduates would be useful. Surely, not all MS degrees are created equal, with some focusing more on career outcomes immediately after graduation and others positioning graduates for further advanced study. We have modified the discussion to delineate some of these program-specific differences in outcomes based on the goals of the programs, to better contextualize the findings. 4. Figure 1 is drawn from NSF data, and readers are pointed toward NSF technical notes, but the reviewer advises inclusion of a brief statement indicating what types of institutions were included and what subfields are represented. Per reviewer recommendation, we have updated the figure 1 figure legend to include a description of institutions and the subfields represented. 5. On page 7, the authors describe outcomes for 337 graduates across the programs with respect to the degrees they are currently pursuing. Given the stated goals upon matriculation, we would expect closer to 600 graduates in advanced degree programs. Reasons for the large discrepancy in the initial goals vs. the actual outcomes should be explored further in the discussion. We take the reviewers suggestion and explore the discrepancy between initial goals vs actual outcomes in the Discussion section. We are able to show that the discrepancy is in part resolved by delayed matriculations into advanced degree programs after entering the workforce first after finishing their masters degree. 6. Some aspects of interpretation appear in the results and would be a better fit for the discussion, e.g. page 8 (last paragraph on page) and page 10 (top of page). Per reviewer recommendation, we have moved both of those indicated sections to the discussion. 7. Page 9: change “very proportionate” to “proportional.” We’ve made this correction. 8. Statistical outcomes – letter conversion introduced an error. Should the square boxes be replaced by chi-squared? Thank you, we will ensure that our symbols carry over in the final submission. 9. Do domestic and international graduates represent the same programs? How would this track back to the reviewer request for more information on goals for the graduates of each program? In other words, is the higher proportion of international grads heading to PhD programs in line with initially stated goals upon matriculation or program selection for MS programs that are more research-focused? While we cannot discern from our incoming student survey the type of additional advanced degree program that incoming M.S. students were interested in pursuing post graduation, we can confirm that there is indeed a higher proportion of international students who graduated from our research-focused M.S. programs to pursue an additional advanced degree (89% international vs. 27% domestic). We’ve added this analysis to the results section. 10. It would be helpful to know what sorts of career mentoring is available to students in each of the programs. It is briefly mentioned in a very specific case at the bottom of page 10, but further information on the sorts of assistance provided to the students and in which career domains would be helpful. This may help readers understand if certain outcomes are supported to a greater extent than others. We have modified the discussion to discuss our own career development programs and resources, acknowledge the efforts of other institutions, and to reinforce the value of institutional investment in these important career preparation resources. 11. For the analysis looking at two year career status, can this be tracked back to initially stated career goals at the time of matriculation? Or were those data not yet collected for that cohort? Can it be provided for some of the graduates? We have addressed this request with a new figure 9 and accompanying modifications to the results and discussion sections to accommodate the new analysis. 12. Also for these graduates who are in an advanced degree program after two years but not initially, is it possible to determine if there was an unsuccessful application cycle in between, thereby necessitating the gap year? We are unable to determine this explicitly from our data, but we have added more interpretation of our findings in the discussion section to address this question. A limitation of our survey design is that we do not inquire about where students are in the application process for advanced degree programs. In a future study, we will map the applicant journey more precisely. 13. Figure 5c is probably adequate as text, but if there are no limits on figures, do not object to keeping it. Thank you for this recommendation. We agree with the reviewer and have removed panel “c” from what is now Figure 8. 14. Recommend in the discussion spending some time thinking about the transferability of the findings and the relevance of this work in the overall context of the biomedical workforce. We have made extensive revisions to the Discussion section to reflect more on the implications of our findings. 15. The data are mentioned as being available with restrictions, and are provided as a supplemental dataset, but I defer to the editorial staff to determine if the restricted dataset meets publication requirements. Restriction is necessary for this disaggregated dataset in order to maintain student privacy standards. Of note, to accommodate the additional analyses performed for this revision, we have added a column to the S1 Dataset to distinguish domestic and international students. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243153.r002
17 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Amy Prunuske, Editor An Institutional Analysis of Graduate Outcomes Reveals a Contemporary Workforce Footprint for Biomedical Master’s Degrees PONE-D-20-19103R1 Dear Dr. McKinney, 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, Amy Prunuske Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for your revised submission and your thoughtful responses to the concern. I am happy to accept your manuscript. The Reviewer did note that you have not provide all of the data underlying your manuscript. Please determine if it would be appropriate to share this data as supporting information. 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 ******** 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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: (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: Yes:** Andrea M Zimmerman https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243153.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Amy Prunuske, Editor PONE-D-20-19103R1 An Institutional Analysis of Graduate Outcomes Reveals a Contemporary Workforce Footprint for Biomedical Master’s Degrees Dear Dr. McKinney: 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. Amy Prunuske Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243153.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 .