Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 8, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-28231 Australian Aboriginal techniques for memorisation: Translation into a medical and allied health education setting PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reser, 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 Dec 20 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:
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, Vijayaprakash Suppiah, PhD 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 2. Please ensure that you have described your experimental procedures in sufficient detail in your manuscript to enable reproducibility and replicability. For instance for group 1, you refer to Yates (1966) for a description of the memorization technique; If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods). 3. 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. 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. [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: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 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 ********** 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 ********** 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: • Very interesting study and easy to follow and understand • Good to see memory recall occurred six weeks later and limitations associated with the findings as the Aboriginal memory group had a lower level of recall. It would have been good to see more comments around this finding as the students from this group reported using the technique for other study. I would say the novelty of the approach provided a new way to consider memorising vast amounts of information which was reported in the appendix. • I would have expected the study to capture ethnicity data of the participants as students with an Aboriginal background may be familiar with the technique. In future studies this may be worth noting even in the follow-up section. • Good to see the cultural safety component has been adhered to with the inclusion of a co-investigator that was of Aboriginal descent. To increase the cultural safety of the research they could be named in the paper rather than anonymised. Then the process and outcome is increasing the capacity and capability of Aboriginal people within research. Reviewer #2: The premise behind the study, using Aboriginal memory techniques, is interesting. The paper could do with some major restructuring to remove duplication and provide clarity/more detail on what the study involved. This is an overly long paper for two small studies and should be condensed considerably. The lack of consistency around terms used to refer to First Nations peoples (Indigenous, Aboriginal, Australian Aboriginal, Indigenous memorisation method, etc) makes is difficult to understand when you are referring to Aboriginal people from Australia and First Nations people from other colonised countries. NACCHO recommends that “Aboriginal” rather than Indigenous is used. If you are also referring to Torres Strait Islander people then this should be specified. Abstract It would be better to split methods and results and the first sentences of the conclusion is a summary not a conclusion. Introduction There are very few references in the introduction. For example, the second and third paragraphs have no references. Where does this information come from? The first sentence is very long – to improve readability this should be revised. The second paragraph is a repeat of the end of the first paragraph, I suggest that you split the first paragraph and combine it with the third paragraph (removing repetition). With the following sentence requires an explanation (and reference) of the classical memory technique: “The methods employed by Australian Aboriginal Elders for memorising information bear a striking resemblance to classical memory techniques developed by scholars and clergy in Western societies for recitation.” The information from p3 line 113 to the end of the introduction should be summarised into a couple of sentences. Methods I found the methods section to be fragmented, repetitive and difficult to follow. For example some of the detail in recruitment is repeated in procedure. It would be better if this was combined and information on ethics provided separately. Basic demographical information (sex, age) is missing from each of the groups and should be added. How were the students randomly assigned? It wasn’t clear that the second memory test for the memory palace group was the same list or another list. I inferred that was the same list after reading about the Aboriginal memory group. The list should be included as separate table and referred to the first time it is mentioned. The information on where the list came from should be included in the methods, not just the figure legend. A flow diagram of what happened with each group would be useful. The methods would be clearer if the information on the technique training was provided before the information on what the students did – the use of both “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal” in this section further confuses things. Sequence value should be referenced. How have you taken into account that the proportion of students that had baseline 20/20 results is markedly different in each group? Did these students maintain the 20/20 result or did it drop in the subsequent tests? I’m dubious about being able to use thematic analysis on the limited data provided by the “5 descriptive words” in the survey. I think word clouds are a gimmick and this section lacks qualitative rigour. It would have been more useful if the students indicated if they used the technique they learnt. You don’t need to give a definition of thematic analysis. What’s needed is what happened during this process. How was the data coded? Who was involved? What happened during the debates on interpreting the data? How were any differences reconciled? The last sentence of the methods doesn’t fit with describing what you have done. Other important details are missing (see below). How many students took part in the second study? Results The first subheading doesn’t match the information provided in this section – you are referring to all groups not just the “Aboriginal approach”. Figure 2 isn’t the easiest way to understand the data; the type of plot that you have used isn’t mentioned in the legend. Why have you used Violin plots? I would have found a line graph for each group, which depicts individual changes over the three tests, easier to interpret this data. The numbers are too low in the 6 month follow up for any inferences to be made – I suggest removing this from the paper. The last figure is not needed. With the thematic analysis (again it was not clear that this was only for Study 2 as you had mentioned thematic analysis of the 5 words responses)) – how many students responded to the survey? and how many of these talked about the memorisation technique? It appears that you are comparing the data to Bloom’s taxonomy (there is no information on what this is or why you are using it). This goes in the methods, not the results section. This part of the results section includes discussion – this should only include your interpretation. Discussion The numbers in this study are too small for the inferences made – there were clear differences in the groups with baseline accuracy. The paragraphs in the discussion are very long. The discussion also repeats information that was provided in the introduction. This is little cohesion between the two studies. The discussion is the place to draw this out not the results section. The limitations contain new information that is not included in the methods or results. The main limitation of low numbers has not been addressed. ********** 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: Dr Dianne Wepa 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.
|
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-20-28231R1 Australian Aboriginal techniques for memorisation: Translation into a medical and allied health education setting PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reser, 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 Jun 03 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:
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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Vijayaprakash Suppiah, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: 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 #2: The authors have addressed reviewer comments - the readibility of the paper has improved greatly. It is much easier to follow what happened in the study. Minor edit - 95% confidence intervals are missing from the OR and should be added to the abstract, results and figures. ********** 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 #2: Yes: Julia Marley [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
Australian Aboriginal techniques for memorisation: Translation into a medical and allied health education setting PONE-D-20-28231R2 Dear Dr. Reser, 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, Vijayaprakash Suppiah, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-28231R2 Australian Aboriginal techniques for memorization: Translation into a medical and allied health education setting Dear Dr. Reser: 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. Vijayaprakash Suppiah Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .