Authors submission guidelines, a survey of pediatric dentistry journals regarding ethical issues

Tarun Walia; Gauri Kalra; Vijay Prakash Mathur; Jatinder Kaur Dhillon

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261881

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 5, 2021
15 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Despina Koletsi, Editor PONE-D-21-18572 Survey of Submission Guidelines for Authors on Ethical Issues in Pediatric Dentistry Journals PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Walia, 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 Aug 27 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. 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, Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd 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 [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have to decide which terminology to use, and apply it through out the text, is it ethical requirements, guidelines or principles? Title to be revised: Authors ethical issues submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals. Aims: Missing from document, currently only in the abstract, thus to be added in the document. Methods and Materials: How was the checklist compiled, was it based on the ICJME document? Which references were used for? To add at page 6 line 111. Was the checklist/ survey been validated priorly of doing the survey? What was the % of disagreement between the two evaluators? Was disagreement found mostly on one specific or several items of the check list? Results Raw results per Journal and per principle to be included either as Descriptive Table or as appendix. Table 1, to add on an extra column the Impact Factor of the Journals, for those that it exists. Table 2, could be graphically presented in a horizontal bar histogram for each item of the checklist, to make results easier to apprehend. Additional analysis: 1) The check list could be grouped in 3 categories, by weight of contribution and then the results presented accordingly by histogram or pie chart.. Check list categories to be considered are: A=1 through 6, B=7-12, C=13,14. This type of analysis will provide some weight on the ethical principles missing per journal. 2) The association of the Impact Factor IF on the ethical principles , to be investigated. Conclusions: To be revised as an answer to the aim. Reviewer #2: The present article deals with a very important and interesting issue and highlights the fact that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors. However, I believe that with some changes, it can be better presented. My detailed comments can be found in the attached file. ****** 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 [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 PONE-D-21-18572.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r001
Revision 1
25 Aug 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: Comment: The authors have to decide which terminology to use, and apply it throughout the text, is it ethical requirements, guidelines or principles? – submission guidelines as per Ethical Principals Response: Author submission guidelines - used throughout and has been modified throughout the manuscript Comment: Title to be revised: Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues Response: Title modified (Lines 1 and 2) Comment: Aims: Missing from document, currently only in the abstract, thus to be added in the document. Response: Aims & Objectives added (Lines 73-74) Comment: Methods and Materials: How was the checklist compiled, was it based on the ICJME document? Which references were used for? To add at page 6 line 111. Was the checklist/ survey been validated priorly of doing the survey? Response: The checklist for marking compliance was mainly used from the previous article of same authors-Mathur VP, Dhillon JK, Kalra G, Sharma A, Mathur R. Survey of instructions to authors in Indian and British Dental Journals with respect to ethical guidelines. J Indian Soc PedodPrev Dent. 2013;31(2):107-112. Modifications were done in context with recent amendments in ICMJE guidelines- Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Reference added - line 105-107 and Lines 108-110. Comment: What was the % of disagreement between the two evaluators? Was disagreement found mostly on one specific or several items of the checklist? Response: Disagreement between evaluators were not tested as the findings were cross verified by a group of other two authors Comment: Results - Raw results per Journal and per principle to be included either as Descriptive Table or as appendix. Response: Raw results/ data entry may be shared only for perusal of editors and reviewers only Comment: Table 1, to add on an extra column the Impact Factor of the Journals, for those that it exists. Response: Added Comment: Table 2, could be graphically presented in a horizontal bar/ histogram for each item of the checklist, to make results easier to apprehend. Response: Figure 2 added Comment: Additional analysis: 1) The checklist could be grouped in 3 categories, by weight of contribution and then the results presented accordingly by histogram or pie chart. Checklist categories to be considered are A=1 through 6, B=7-12, C=13,14. This type of analysis will provide some weight on the ethical principles missing per journal. Response: The bar graph has been described which is self explanatory for individual ethical principles in Figure 2 Comment: 2) The association of the Impact Factor IF on the ethical principles, to be investigated. Response: Calculating association is not possible as not all journals have an impact factor, however, it has been mentioned in table 1. Reviewer #2: Comments: SECTIONS - According to the submission guidelines of the journal, the major sections of the article should be as follows: ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION, MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS. Τhe “MATERIALS AND METHODS” section has been omitted. Please add this major section and use sub-sections for search strategy e.t.c. Please use the same format for the sections of the same level, as presented in the sample manuscript body included in the Journal Submission Guidelines. Response: Appropriate sections have been mentioned with subsections in the Materials and Methods section. Abstract- line 17, Introduction- line 36, Aims & objectives - line 73, Materials and methods- line 75, Results- line 144, Discussion- line 183 and Conclusions- line 268. Comments: ABSTRACT - The “Background” is not necessary according to the Journal Guidelines in the Abstract Session and it can be omitted. The Objective of the study must be clearly reported in a separate subsection. The 3 subsections of Settings and Design, Materials and Methods and Statistical Analysis can be included all in a single subsection “Materials and Methods. Response: Headings in the abstract modified. Changes done lines 17 to 34 Comments: INTRODUCTION - In this section, the significance of the present study and the reason why the problem addressed is important are well presented. However, no reference is made to the existing literature or whether similar studies have been carried out. Ιt is not clear what is new that this study offers in the existing literature. Nor is the purpose of the study clearly stated. This information could be included in two additional separate paragraphs. Response: The reason to conduct this study has been highlighted in the last para of introduction. Reference study mentioned. Changes from lines 66 to 74. Comments: MATERIALS AND METHODS (i) The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the Journals could be presented more clearly. Response: Mentioned. Lines 76-90. (ii) Was the authors' blindness to the Journal somehow ensured? If not, it must be mentioned. Response: Authors could not be blinded due to the design of study. Lines 102-103 (iii) The statistical analysis performed should be reported at the end of this section in a separate paragraph. Response: Mentioned. Lines 142-143 Comments: RESULTS – (i) Concerning the search results, a flow chart would provide more information and be more explanatory. Response: Flowchart for search results added. Figure 1. (ii) The results should be presented by absolute number too and not only by percentages. Response: Results presented as absolute numbers in text. Lines 147-167 (iii) Table 1 or Table 2 could be presented as a bar graph instead of a table for better representation of the results graphically. Response: Bar graph for table 2 added. Figure 2. (iv) In the text, there is no need to mention the percentages of compliant Journals for all 14 principles, as these are shown in the table. However, the emphasis should be given mainly to the most or least frequent ethical principles not mentioned in the Pediatric Dentistry Journals. Response: Results presented as absolute numbers in text. Lines 157-171. Comments: DISCUSSION – (i) This section is well written, and all aspects are analyzed correctly. In the second paragraph, reference citation “7” is repeated and a citation is missing at the end of this paragraph. Response: Reference 7 deleted; reference 8 added at end of this paragraph. Line 211 Comments: CONCLUSIONS – (i) Line 259 Please start with a new sentence “…Ethical issues…” (ii) It would be preferable and more readable if you could present the conclusions using bullets instead of a single paragraph. Response: Started with desired line. Conclusion presented in bullets. Lines 269-279. Comments: TABLES - Please use the same format for table titles, as follows: “Table 1. This is the Table 1 Title.” Response: Format corrected. Line 176 Comments: REFERENCES – (i) Please cite references in brackets (for example, “[1]” or “[2-5]” or “[3,7,9]”). Response: References cited in brackets. Cited throughout the manuscript Comments: (ii) There is inconsistency in the references. Firstly, references with more than six authors should list the first six author names, followed by “et al.” Moreover, all references should follow exactly the same style. Response: Referencing of authors changed as per instructions. References 8, 15, 16 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r002
1 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Despina Koletsi, Editor PONE-D-21-18572R1Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Walia, 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 15 2022 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: https://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, Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd 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 #1: (No Response) 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: No 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Please state the reasons the raw data of your work cannot be made public as an Appendix to this publication Reviewer #2: Dear authors, You have adequately addressed generally all the comments raised in the previous round or review process. In the attached file you can see some additional comments. ****** 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:** Katerina Kavvadia 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21- 18572_R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r003
Revision 2
4 Dec 2021 Author Response REVIEWER´S COMMENTS#1: Please state the reasons the raw data of your work cannot be made public as an Appendix to this publication AUTHOR´S REPLY: Raw data has been uploaded as a separate file with main manuscript. Changes done on page/line number: A separate document named as Appendix attached. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS# 2: In the abstract section, the “background” was correctly deleted and it is now well structured. However, I would recommend to replace “Aim and Objectives” with just “Objective”. AUTHOR´S REPLY: Aim and Objectives” changed to “Objective”. Changes done on page/line number: Line 17 REVIEWER COMMENTS # 2: The significance of the study and the reason of its conduction are now well highlighted in the Introduction section. However, in the Aim and Objective section, it would be preferable if there was no title and just the beginning of the sentence was: “The aim of the present study was to assess the pattern of submission guidelines regarding the ethical issues given to authors in various Pediatric Dental Journals.“ AUTHOR´S REPLY: Changes done. Changes done on page/line number: Line 73-74 REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: The subsections of the MATERIALS AND METHODS section should follow the same format. All for example bold and italics. AUTHOR´S REPLY: Changes done. Sub headings changed in bold and italic. Changes done on page/line number: Line 76, 91, 104, 129, 135, 141. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: Please rephrase lines 85-86: “However, the journals which were discontinued or with irregular publishing were excluded.” AUTHOR´S REPLY: Changes done. Language changed. Changes done on page/line number: Line 86. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In line 93, the keyword “Pediatric Dentistry” is mentioned twice. AUTHOR´S REPLY: Two different key words used are- Paediatric Dentistry and Pediatric Dentistry due to differences in British and American English; spellings corrected. Changes done on page/line number: Line 93. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In the figure and table legends please delete the phrase: “This is the figure 1…” or “This is the Table 1…”. For Figure 1, you can just write: “Figure 1: Literature Search Methodology and Results.” AUTHOR´S REPLY: Legends for table and figures corrected. Changes done on page/line number: Line 172, 176, 181. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In conclusions, in the second bullet please split the sentence in order to be clearer. AUTHOR´S REPLY: The second bullet has been split into different sentences as second and third bullet for clarity. Changes done on page/line number: Line 271-276. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In conclusions, the following sentence: “There is a need that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors.” could be placed in a separate bullet. AUTHOR´S REPLY: Bullet separated for “There is a need that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors.” in conclusion. Changes done on page/line number: Line 280- 281. REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: Please check again the references so that all follow the same format. Inconsistencies exist again, so make sure that the dates, the authors etc. are written in the same way. AUTHOR´S REPLY: References checked and modified. Changes done on page/line number: Format of References number 1,2,6,7,8,9, 13,14, 16 modified. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r004
9 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Despina Koletsi, Editor PONE-D-21-18572R2Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Walia, 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 23 2022 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: https://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, Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear authors, After close evaluation of the manuscript and the uploaded raw data, I have noticed that the Impact Factor presented for the journals is not correct (both in raw data information and Table 1). It appears that you have mixed- up Impact scores of some journals with impact factors. For example, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry has no Impact Factor currently (Clarivate Analytics), but reports an Impact score of 2.16. this is different. pls correct throughout and re- examine closely for all journals. As in others, for example Intern J Paediatr Dent, the correct IF is given. Also, for others there is inconsistency on what it is reported in the Table and Appendix file with raw data. Please use the Clarivate Analytics of the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020, consistently. Thank you. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.0261881.r005
Revision 3
10 Dec 2021 Author Response Additional Editor Comments: After close evaluation of the manuscript and the uploaded raw data, I have noticed that the Impact Factor presented for the journals is not correct (both in raw data information and Table 1). It appears that you have mixed- up Impact scores of some journals with impact factors. For example, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry has no Impact Factor currently (Clarivate Analytics), but reports an Impact score of 2.16. this is different. pls correct throughout and re- examine closely for all journals. As in others, for example Intern J Paediatr Dent, the correct IF is given. Also, for others there is inconsistency on what it is reported in the Table and Appendix file with raw data. Please use the Clarivate Analytics of the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020, consistently. Reply to Comments: The impact factor values have been modified in the manuscript and appendix as suggested and are highlighted in yellow. Line/Page number: Line 154-156 (Table 1 in manuscript) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r006
14 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Despina Koletsi, Editor Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues. PONE-D-21-18572R3 Dear Dr. Walia, 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, Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r007
Formally Accepted
7 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Despina Koletsi, Editor PONE-D-21-18572R3 Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues. Dear Dr. Walia: 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. Despina Koletsi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261881.r008

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 .