PONE-D-20-28545

Comparing the efficiency of paper-based and electronic data capture during face-to-face interviews

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tate,

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 Jan 14 2021 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,

Dimitrios K Moutopoulos, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I consider the basic premise, method developed and questions asked by this study as valuable and interesting. This issue is surely of great interest and the lack of information about the on-site surveys of recreational fishery, compromises the capacity to put in place effective policies, both in terms of stock assessment and fisheries management strategies. The strength of the study is the novelty and broad usefulness of this approach. This task is not easy, with very different levels of data availability, especially for the data-poor areas and high heterogeneity in the quality of data between the different fishery compartments, especially for the recreational fishery, which exhibited very different levels of data availability and importance between countries. These data constraints might be usefully to be mentioned in the discussion.

The survey design and data analysis are clear and well explained.

However, there are certain issues that need to be addressed before publication. More specifically, the authors should clarify the terminology of certain aspects of errors (e.g. accuracy, efficiency). For consistency reasons error rate’ may confuse the reader in suggesting it only refers to errors, and not missing data. Title should be also reconsidered. In the results, authors should clarify the sampling strategy.

Also, which are the geographical constraints that should be taken into account to make the case study expand in broader spatial magnitude in order to be a controllable and well-defined example?

A table is missing from the submitted manuscript (in line 222 Table 5 was wrongly mentioned instead of Table 4) and the authors should be consistent with the journal guidelines especially in the cross-reference with the figure (e.g. Fig. 1, Fig 3, Figure 2). In Table 3 it might be useful for the audience to have a clear picture of the results by showing totals for error and missing data (ie., combining both interviewer and scribe).

More comments are raised by the reviewer comments.

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The authors would like to thank the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) for funding, planning, and implementation of this survey as well as the field interviewers and data entry staff."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

(2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 2 and 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. Please include a copy of Table 5 which you refer to in your text on page 12.

[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: 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 deals with comparing efficiency of two types of tools (paper based and electronic) to capture data during face-to-face interviews to recreational shore fishers in Western Australia. Authors measure efficiency of the two methods via three main dimensions: Accuracy, Practicality, and Cost-effectiveness. This is a very interesting and relatively novel area of research, particularly for on-site surveys of recreational fishing. As the authors pointed, it is thus an important contribution to the field; it provides relevant information that can be used to support future decisions on the type of tool used, electronic or paper based, to collect data in similar surveys.

Overall, the paper is very well written, and the various sections are balanced. The Introduction explores relatively well the state of the art for this topic and lays the ground on why this type of research is needed. The review of the previous research on the topic is not extensive, and the number of references included is relatively small, but this can be due the limited number of studies on the topic. The survey design and data analysis are clear and well explained. The statistical analysis used to test the accuracy of the two approaches is relatively simple but seems appropriate and sufficient to explore the data and support the findings. The Results and Discussion also describe clearly and explore well the main findings. There are only a few points which the authors should consider to potentially improve the paper.

Title (lines 1 and 2): If the character limit allows, I would suggest the Title lists exactly what the study investigated: accuracy, practicality and cost-effectiveness. ‘Efficiency’ is somewhat of a vague term in my opinion.

Abstract (lines 18, 19): Consider including here exactly what the direct comparison was about: accuracy, practicality, and cost-effectiveness

Abstract (line 21); ‘Error rate’: Here and elsewhere in the paper (e.g., keywords, lines 188, 201, 203, etc), whenever the authors are referring to the total inaccuracies (missing data and errors) should use the term ‘inaccuracy rate’ rather than ‘Error rate’. ‘Error rate’ may confuse the reader in suggesting it only refers to errors, and not missing data.

Introduction (line 68): For consistency with the terminology used in other parts of the paper, authors should use the term ‘practicality’ rather than ‘timeliness’

Methods, Study area (line 93): This seems to refer to figure 1, but there is an error in the cross-reference to this Fig.

Table 1- The authors should consider replacing the term “errors” by “inaccuracies” in both the table caption and header. As noted above, this may confuse the reader as error is one of the two types of inaccuracies analyzed by the authors.

Results (line 184): This seems to refer to figure 2, but there is an error in the cross-reference to this Fig. Note also that the Figure captions seem to be missing from the submitted PDF.

Results (line 189): Could the authors clarify if each survey day had the exact same number of interviews. If so, than the average number of inaccuracies per day (as noted above, ‘inaccuracies’ seems a better term to use here, as this seems to refer to both missing data and error in data entered) seems appropriate.

If not (ie., if each survey day had different number of completed interviews), than the average number of inaccuracies per filled interview within each month would seem to be a more appropriate metric to use.

Table 3 – the authors should consider adding totals for error and missing data (ie., combining both interviewer and scribe) to Table 3. This would help the reader in interpreting this result.

Results (line 222): There is reference to Table 5 in the text, but no reference to Table 4, and both Tables 4 and 5 seem to be missing from the submitted PDF.

Discussion (line 266): This percentage of 0.7% seems to be mentioned for the first time. The authors should consider including it somewhere in the Results, so the reader clearly understands where this is coming from.

Discussion (line 275): based on the information provided in the Methods, all of the questions or fields included in the survey seemed to be multiple option, or for relative few characters (if a free text field). It would be potentially interesting if the authors could add a note or two on the potential practically of EDC vs PDC in the use of open-ended questions with potentially long responses (e.g., opinion on existing regulations).

**********

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.

Comparing the accuracy, practicality and cost-effectivenes of paper-based and electronic data capture during face-to-face interviews

PONE-D-20-28545R1

Dear Dr. Tate,

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,

Dimitrios K Moutopoulos, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors followed all the comments raised by the reviewers and, particularly regarding the terms of ‘error rate’ and the potential confusion around its meaning. The ms is now coherent and robust, and it can be published as it is.

Reviewers' comments: