PONE-D-20-34428

Evaluating the influential factors for life preserver donning tests

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Qian,

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, make all the corrections required by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 6 Jan. 2021. 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,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, 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.Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4.We note that Figure 2 and 3  includes an image of a patient / participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

Please respond by return e-mail with an amended manuscript. We can upload this to your submission on your behalf.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, please either instruct us to remove the figure or supply a replacement figure by return e-mail for which you hold the relevant copyright permissions and subject consents. In some cases, you may need to specify in the text that the image used in the figure is not the original image used in the study, but a similar image used for illustrative purposes only. We can make any changes on your behalf.

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, consider all the comments of the reviewers carefully

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: As we all know, Life preservers usually play a vital role in ensuring the safety of passengers. In order to evaluate the influencing factors of the Life preservers donning test, the author selected 109 college students and 42 villagers as the research objects. A total of fourteen variables are considered as potential influencing factors. T-test or one-way analysis of variance is used to determine whether the grouping of categorical variables has a significant impact on donning performance. In order to evaluate the relationship between donning performance and influencing factors, a model of retrieving time, opening time and donning time was established based on SLR analysis. Finally, a suggestion to modify the donning test program is introduced, which helps to improve the effectiveness and reliability of the donning test. The structure of the research content of the thesis is complete, the experiment is reasonable, and the data analysis is relatively complete. However, there are certain problems in the paper, and the overall quality of the paper can be improved after revision. Therefore, it is recommended a major revision. The specific issues are as follows:

1、There are several grammatical issues in the paper, I suggest that the author read through the full manuscript and carefully modify the deficiencies.

2、It is unclear that the data analysis and process techniques mentioned by the authors are their own proposed work or are they addressing existing work. Authors should clearly specify that and provide citation and reference to the existing work.

3、The quality of figures and their placement needs to be improved. At times, it becomes difficult the link the discussion with figures in the article. Lastly, the authors are requested to highlight their technical contribution more precisely and how it aligns with the publication criteria set by PLOS ONE.

4、Authors should provide discussions on their analysis results and they should also compare their results with existing and related studies.

5、The sample researched in the thesis seems to be a bit small. Appropriately increasing the sample size will make the research results more convincing; in addition, before the accident, passengers are generally out of psychological stress reaction stage, the ability to operate equipment will be reduced, and the data calculation process Should this part of the content be considered?

Reviewer #2: It is a messy article without suitable coherence.

The subject characteristics must be presented in the materials and method section.

All tables must be presented at result section.

Some tables, such as Table 7, are too long and is not suitable by this way for an article.

The discussion section should be rewritten based on the essay writing framework.

The article needs a general review.

Reviewer #3: I appreciate authors for conducting an interesting study to evaluate the influencing factor for life preserver donning tests.

Title of the study is Evaluating the influential factors for life preserver donning tests and objective of the study is to evaluate the influential factors for donning tests of adult life preservers and propose recommendations for modification of the donning test procedure.

An appropriate study design was selected, and the procedure described clearly. Results are presented properly. The conclusion was made according to the study result.

Well done!

Reviewer #4: The study “Evaluating the influential factors for life preserver donning tests” is interesting. This paper aims to evaluate the influential factors for donning tests of adult life preservers and propose recommendations for modification of the donning test procedure. The paper is well set, and the problem highlighted executed properly. However, attention should be given to the following highlighted points before resubmitting.

1. Line 26 T-test or ANOVA may be written as “T-test and ANOVA”

2. The character shorthand should defined on their first appearance and after that use accordingly. Line 48 TSO-C13, Line 49 FAA etc. these abbreviations is not defined. Or make a table which include all character shorthand. See for reference https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2020/1325071/

3. Table 1, Test subject characteristics (Head circumference (cm) 5th, 50th , and 95th for male, the 5th and 50th percentile are Nil while for female the 50th and 95th percentiles are Nile. Please elaborate this point that how come a specific percentile is Nil when 95th is available and 50th is Nil.

4. Lines 149 Check this percentage “About 56.3% of the participants were male, and 41.1% were female. Why the sum of two percentages is not 100 when the data are categorial having two categories i.e. Male and Female.

5. Lines 236 “The step stepwise linear regression (SLR) models of the retrieving time, the package opening time, and the donning time took the following forms Eq (1), Eq (2), and Eq (3). Where y retrieving, y opening, and y donning were the independent variables about the retrieving time, the package opening time, and the donning time, respectively. x14, x1, and x7 were the dependent variables about tool test time, gender, and instruction condition.” All the three models are significant at 5% level of significance but their R2 is very low, for Eq (1) it is 0.059, for Eq (2) is 0.098 and for Eq (3) is 0.182. Is there any specific reason that why R2 is low.

6. Lines 281 “Some subjects with glasses and some girl with long hair complained that the hole was too small for them. But the t test results showed that wearing glasses did not have a significant effect on the donning performance, and gender also did not have a significant effect on the donning time.” Here girl with long hair is not tested also test this variable as well.

7. In last more recent references should be added to broaden the view of readers and enhance the new contribution of this paper for comparison.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Saidur Mashreky

Reviewer #4: 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: Review.docx

Evaluating the influential factors for life preserver donning tests

PONE-D-20-34428R1

Dear Dr. Qian,

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,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The structure of the research content of the thesis is complete, the experiment is reasonable, and the data analysis is relatively complete. The author has revised all the questions mentioned and it is recommended to accept.

Reviewer #2: My recommendations to article improvement have not been applied and the article is not satisfactory by this way.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No