Victimizations and surviving of workplace violence against waitresses in southern Ethiopia

Bewunetu Zewude; Tewodros Habtegiorgis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261883

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2021
24 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Samantha C Winter, Editor PONE-D-21-09783 Victimizations and Surviving of Workplace Violence against Waitresses in Southern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zewude, 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. As the reviewers mentioned, the findings from this paper have the potential to make important contributions to the work-pace violence field in lower- and middle-income countries, specifically Ethiopia. There are, however, some important issues that need to be addressed for this paper to move forward in the review process. In particular, there needs to be additional clarification/detail about the sampling for the study. Authors need to provide information about the ethical process and considerations in the study (including consent process, protection of participants, confidentiality, and ethics review and approvals). The authors should consider the use of pseudonyms or participant ID codes and inclusion of a statement or two in the methods section clarifying the use of pseudonyms/IDs and/or demographic details of participants (e.g., age). Please also clarify/highlight/discuss key findings and provide a discussion of implications of findings for policy/practice/intervention/future research in the discussion/conclusion. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 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, Samantha C Winter, 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 include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: 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: First, I would like to thank the author/researcher in bringing out the issues of workplace violence among female in a developing country. This article will add up some more information in relevant topic. However, it needs more effort in revision. I think the manuscript should be independent in terms of its format rather than being a short-cut version of a research report/thesis. Below are the general comments (except for the specific comments made throughout the manuscript by doing track changes – see attachment) that needs main revision. Introduction – This section looks good, but it has plenty of information. It needs to be shortened by condensing the information that are related to workplace violence and women, as well as by removing the duplication (in information) and other theoretical description that are not specific with the objectives of the study. For example, this paper only focuses on the status of workplace violence and does not have anything related to policy/legislative aspects. So, it is better to remove that. Materials and methods – Overall good. However, it needs a bit more clarification on the selection of participants (e.g., the number of participants selected from each store). The method of data analysis needs more detailed description on how the data were analyzed. Ethics related aspects (privacy, confidentiality, ethical approval, etc.) are missing. Results – This section is very good except the style of presenting the information (layout) and some grammatical errors. Structure or layout needs to be rearranged, such as change of paragraph while mentioning the statement of participants. Some statements given by participants are in present tense, which needs to be corrected. There are names in few statements which does not seems to be ethical. Participant's name must be removed and de-identified, but it does need the other characteristics of participants such as their age and working store. E.g. P12, 26 years, Cafeteria Discussion – The starting of the discussion section does not seem to be appropriate. It should be started with the background of the results/objectives. Do not repeat the whole results but briefly mention your results and discuss it with other. While discussing, focus on why and how of your findings as well as other study's findings. At the end of discussion section, write few sentences on how your findings are significant or different than other studies and its implication in Ethiopian context. References – Referencing in the text as well as in the bibliography section does not match the PLOS guidelines. It is meant to be in Vancouver style, but this manuscript adopted Author-Date/Harvard method. It needs major revision. Moreover, references need to be cross checked between the text and the bibliography section. Reviewer #2: 1. It would be good to have a theory for the study 2. Methodology: a. The sampling framework needs to be clear. For example, Woliata sodo sounds like a small town and it would be important to mention about how many groceries, restaurants etc that are there, so that we can have a feel of the representation. b. “We have purposefully selected equal number of participants representing the group of waitresses working in the restaurant, cafeteria, hotel, and grocery store”- this statement can be challenged because some of the places may have fewer workers than others, which means that some organization may end up having more participants than others. Could there be some restaurants, cafeteria having fewer women employees than the selected ten? c. Another question is the criteria used to select the ten from each organization? d. Whereas it is fair to say that “data saturation was attained after sixteen waitresses were interviewed”; one is left wondering about the representation of the 16---was there a good representation from the four sectors, that is, restaurant, cafeteria, hotel, and grocery? e. “Sex and willingness to participate in the study were the major inclusion criteria we used”; again, the question is whether each person was approached and were asked whether they were willing to participate? f. Ethical issues have not been addressed in this very sensitive topic g. Research approvals have not been mentioned 3. Results & Discussions: they are very interesting, but it would have been interesting to hear voices from the different industries. For example, from the analysis, what kind of violence is mainly experienced by those in the cafeteria industry/ or to describe the direct quote verses (e.g. said so and so who works in the grocery store. Further, the language needs to be reworked on in this section. For example, is the coping strategy ignorance or ignoring – the two terms are different, and it feels like they have been used interchangeably. Direct quotes need to be restructured so that they make sense to the readers. Some of the paragraphs are too long especially under the discussion heading. 4. In the discussion section, the key findings need to be captured as the existing literature/ empirical findings are discussed. 5. Make the conclusion strong so that we hear the gap that existed and how it has been met through this study. ****** 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: PONE-D-21-09783_Reviewers Edit.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261883.r001
Revision 1
25 Jun 2021 Author Response Point-by-point Response Dear Dr. Samantha, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for your editorial services and your help in the process of enabling the peer review process to be undertaken within a reasonable time frame. We are also thankful to the reviewers that have devoted their time for reviewing the material and contributed their share for improving the quality of the article. We wholeheartedly believe that the comments and suggestions provided herewith are highly helpful in terms of producing an interesting paper. Dear all, below is a table containing the comments of the reviewers (and the editor) and a point-by-point response of the authors. We believe that you will find satisfying responses for all the concerns you raised in the paper. If there are further issues that need to be addressed, please do not hesitate to contact us any time. Due to our ambition to get the article published very soon, the corresponding author will be staying 7/24 online attending your emails. Dear editor, in an attempt to ease the editorial process and thereby fasten the publication, we have revised the reference section and changed the style of the in-text citation (in superscript form) according to the journal’s style. Above all, the data collection instrument has also been attached at the end of this page. Thank you very much once again! source of Comment Details of Comments Authors’ Responses Reviewer #1 • Introduction –-This section looks good, but it has plenty of information. It needs to be shortened by condensing the information that are related to workplace violence and women, as well as by removing the duplication (in information) and other theoretical description that are not specific with the objectives of the study. For example, this paper only focuses on the status of workplace violence and does not have anything related to policy/legislative aspects. So, it is better to remove that. • Corrected accordingly! • In addition to correcting all the recommended points, we have also revised the whole introductory section, to the extent of paraphrasing it. • Materials and methods –Overall good. However, it needs a bit more clarification on the selection of participants (e.g., the number of participants selected from each store). The method of data analysis needs more detailed description on how the data were analyzed. Ethics related aspects (privacy, confidentiality, ethical approval, etc.) are missing. • Corrected accordingly! • The ethics statement is provided as a separate section, data analysis method clarified, sampling again clarified. • Results –This section is very good except the style of presenting the information (layout) and some grammatical errors. Structure or layout needs to be rearranged, such as change of paragraph while mentioning the statement of participants. Some statements given by participants are in present tense, which needs to be corrected. There are names in few statements which does not seems to be ethical. Participant's name must be removed and de-identified, but it does need the other characteristics of participants such as their age and working store. E.g. P12, 26 years, Cafeteria • corrected accordingly! • The starting of the discussion section does not seem to be appropriate. It should be started with the background of the results/objectives. Do not repeat the whole results but briefly mention your results and discuss it with other. While discussing, focus on why and how of your findings as well as other study's findings. At the end of discussion section, write few sentences on how your findings are significant or different than other studies and its implication in Ethiopian context. • Corrected according to the suggestion. • As far as inclusion of just major findings is concerned in the discussion, we have made at most effort of not missing interesting findings while at the same trying not to go to unnecessary details. • Referencing in the text as well as in the bibliography section does not match the PLOS guidelines. It is meant to be in Vancouver style, but this manuscript adopted Author-Date/Harvard method. It needs major revision. Moreover, references need to be cross checked between the text and the bibliography section. • corrected accordingly Reviewer #2 • It would be good to have a theory for the study • Dear reviewer, thank you for your insightful suggestion. we are afraid that inclusion of additional literatures would make the introductory section unnecessarily too much. Of course, it could have been done by reducing some portions from the introductory section. But we still believe that sufficient background and justification have been provided in the section. We hope you will understand and share our concern. • The sampling framework needs to be clear. For example, Woliata sodo sounds like a small town and it would be important to mention about how many groceries, restaurants etc that are there, so that we can have a feel of the representation. • Dear reviewer, it is true that Wolaiata Sodo is relatively a small town-actually not that too small. The problem is not from the size of the town, rather it is about the availability of data from the concerned gov’t office. When asked, what the officers give us is just an estimation arrived without data. • In fact, we have made certain clarifications to the sampling section • “We have purposefully selected equal number of participants representing the group of waitresses working in the restaurant, cafeteria, hotel, and grocery store”- this statement can be challenged because some of the places may have fewer workers than others, which means that some organization may end up having more participants than others. Could there be some restaurants, cafeteria having fewer women employees than the selected ten? • we have revised the section accordingly! • thank you • Another question is the criteria used to select the ten from each organization? • revised • Whereas it is fair to say that “data saturation was attained after sixteen waitresses were interviewed”; one is left wondering about the representation of the 16---was there a good representation from the four sectors, that is, restaurant, cafeteria, hotel, and grocery? • the section has been revised accordingly • “Sex and willingness to participate in the study were the major inclusion criteria we used”; again, the question is whether each person was approached and were asked whether they were willing to participate? • Willingness of waitresses to participate in the study was asked after inclusion at the initial sampling stage-40. Dear reviewer, the 16 were the ones who finally given their full consent to participate. • Ethical issues have not been addressed in this very sensitive topic • now addressed • Research approvals have not been mentioned • now considered • Results & Discussions: they are very interesting, but it would have been interesting to hear voices from the different industries. For example, from the analysis, what kind of violence is mainly experienced by those in the cafeteria industry/ or to describe the direct quote verses (e.g. said so and so who works in the grocery store. Further, the language needs to be reworked on in this section. For example, is the coping strategy ignorance or ignoring – the two terms are different, and it feels like they have been used interchangeably. Direct quotes need to be restructured so that they make sense to the readers. Some of the paragraphs are too long especially under the discussion heading. • revised • In the discussion section, the key findings need to be captured as the existing literature/ empirical findings are discussed. • revised • Make the conclusion strong so that we hear the gap that existed and how it has been met through this study. • Considered. The gaps and how they were addressed, the difference with previous studies, and the contribution of the study all are discussed in the discussion in addition to the conclusion. In-depth Interview guiding questions 1. How prevalent is gender-based violence in your work place? 1.1. Have you ever faced gender-based violence now or before while working in similar work places? 1.2. Would you please tell me some of the violence types that you faced? 1.3. ………..also ask her to specify where, when (what time), by whom ( whether she has faced it from the side of customer/client, employer/owner, owner’s family/relative, stranger, etc) 1.4. ……also specify if she faced the violence on account of her gender, ethnicity, religion, social class, or any other stratifying variable? 1.5. Have you ever faced violence or discrimination on the basis of your ethnicity, religious affiliation, or belongingness to a social group that is perceived to as a different/minority in the area? 2. How did you react or respond to the violence you have faced? 2.1. What did you do after facing the violence or discrimination in your work place? 2.2. Have you ever reported to the police, managers/supervisors, [body] guards, the owner, etc……or you just kept silent? 2.3. ……….and why did you do that ……or not did so? 2.4. If you have ever reported, then how did they/it respond to your complaints? 2.5. …………..What is the most common thing you do whenever you face such violence? 3. What physical, psychological, and social challenges have you faced because of the violence? ……… social exclusion, physical damage, illness or sickness, fear or feelings of intimidation, depression, anxiety, loneliness, feelings of helplessness, feelings of worthlessness, etc 4. What was your expectation regarding the possibility of being exposed to gender-based violence in such work places? 4.1. Have you ever expected or were you expecting to be exposed for such workplace violence when you decide to work here? 4.2. ….if yes, then, have you convinced yourself to accept victimizations? 4.3. …….what strategies have you planned to cope-up with the situation? No (code) Variable Categories Frequency Age Marital status Education Years in the work Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Point-by-point response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261883.r002
20 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Samantha C Winter, Editor PONE-D-21-09783R1Victimizations and Surviving of Workplace Violence against Waitresses in Southern EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zewude, 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. The authors made important changes to the manuscript in the revision; however, the manuscript needs some additional revision before acceptance for publication. The authors changed the in-text referencing style from one which used author names and dates such as APA (e.g., Adams, 2019) to a numerical referencing style; however, when they did this, all of the references to specific studies in the introduction and throughout the discussion became inappropriately referenced, (e.g. according to [8],...). These need to be corrected. Additional proofreading for typographical, editorial, and grammatical errors is needed. Please see detailed reviewer comments below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 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: 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, Samantha C Winter, Ph.D. 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): [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: (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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: Yes 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: I would like to thank authors for their effort in revising the manuscript. Although most of the comments have been addressed, the manuscript still needs revision especially in sentence structure, grammar, and format/style. I highly recommend authors to take referencing pattern/citation seriously and revise it. Also, I recommend the authors to seek professional editing for grammar and sentence structure. I have highlighted some errors in the file but those are not all. Please do a thorough proof reading. Below are some of the errors that still exist in the manuscript. In abstract (very initial pages, not the text one), correct the capitalization on keywords. There are still some issues in referencing. For example, in the introduction section, there are few sentences that says According to [8], various sectors undertaken by [30], health working in the mining sector by [26] revealed. This is not the way how you do citation. You can write the author's name in this type of sentences (although it is in Vancouver) and mention the references in number at the end of the sentence OR write it as a finding and keep the reference at the end. For example ----- Instead of writing "Moreover, [27] found high level of morbidity in the form of headache, body ache, problems with vision, cough and breathlessness in Brick Kiln and Construction industries of India" simply write "high level of morbidity in the form of headache, body ache, problems with vision, cough and breathlessness in Brick Kiln and Construction industries of India [27]. No need to put reference in the first sentence of 'research design' Keep an eye on the capitalization of middle words. Example – "Selection of Research participants" Under the section "selection of research participants", there are notable errors in grammar. Methodology should be always in past tense, not in present tense. Same types of errors still exist in 'Findings'. Example – "Data reveal that waitresses adopt", "data reveal that waitresses often contribute to", "Data revealed that though waitresses rarely experience"…… and so on. In findings section, it's good to break the paragraph rather than placing chunk of information and quotations in one paragraph. For example, see the sub-section "the situation of the owners/manager". To sum up, revision stll requires in sentence structure, grammar, and references. Reviewer #2: The author(s) have improved on the document and critically looked into the issues that were raised during the first review. The issues has been presented well and I hope the findings will get to the necessary policy makers or influencers of the same. ****** 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: Yes:** Dr. Julia Kagunda [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-21-09783_R1_reviewer_highlighting errors.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261883.r003
Revision 2
21 Sep 2021 Author Response source of Comment Details of Comments Authors’ Responses Reviewer #1 • Although most of the comments have been addressed, the manuscript still needs revision especially in sentence structure, grammar, and format/style. I highly recommend authors to take referencing pattern/citation seriously and revise it. • Revised • In abstract (very initial pages, not the text one), correct the capitalization on keywords. • Corrected • There are still some issues in referencing. For example, in the introduction section, there are few sentences that says According to [8], various sectors undertaken by [30], health working in the mining sector by [26] revealed. This is not the way how you do citation. You can write the author's name in this type of sentences (although it is in Vancouver) and mention the references in number at the end of the sentence OR write it as a finding and keep the reference at the end. For example ----- Instead of writing "Moreover, [27] found high level of morbidity in the form of headache, body ache, problems with vision, cough and breathlessness in Brick Kiln and Construction industries of India" simply write "high level of morbidity in the form of headache, body ache, problems with vision, cough and breathlessness in Brick Kiln and Construction industries of India [27]. • Revised • No need to put reference in the first sentence of 'research design' • Removed • Keep an eye on the capitalization of middle words. Example – "Selection of Research participants" Under the section "selection of research participants", there are notable errors in grammar. Methodology should be always in past tense, not in present tense. Same types of errors still exist in 'Findings'. Example – "Data reveal that waitresses adopt", "data reveal that waitresses often contribute to", "Data revealed that though waitresses rarely experience"…… and so on. • Revised • In findings section, it's good to break the paragraph rather than placing chunk of information and quotations in one paragraph. For example, see the sub-section "the situation of the owners/manager". • Corrected Reviewer #2 • The author(s) have improved on the document and critically looked into the issues that were raised during the first review. The issues has been presented well and I hope the findings will get to the necessary policy makers or influencers of the same. • Thank you Editors’ comments • The authors changed the in-text referencing style from one which used author names and dates such as APA (e.g., Adams, 2019) to a numerical referencing style; however, when they did this, all of the references to specific studies in the introduction and throughout the discussion became inappropriately referenced, (e.g. according to [8],...). These need to be corrected. • Revised • Additional proofreading for typographical, editorial, and grammatical errors is needed. • Revised Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewrs & the editor - 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261883.r004
14 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Samantha C Winter, Editor Victimizations and Surviving of Workplace Violence against Waitresses in Southern Ethiopia PONE-D-21-09783R2 Dear Dr. Zewude, 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. Please take a look at Reviewer #1's comments about reviewing the manuscript for technical and grammatical issues, and correcting the statements they pointed out in their final comments (attached below). 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, Samantha C Winter, 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: 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: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: It has lots of improvements now. The only thing that needs further improvement (in few places) is the layout based on the journal requirements (e.g. see the subsections of 'results'). I hope this would be corrected during the editing process. Please edit the grammar for the following sentences from 'results' section which needs to be in the past tense. The narrative of P11 (20 years) stipulates that some owners are not responsive to workplace violence against waitresses: (owners were not) Data revealed that waitresses adopt different mechanisms of surviving workplace violence. (reveals and adopted) While most research participants prefer to pay no attention to quarrelsome circumstances in the workplace, they resort to reporting to the owners/supervisors when ignorance itself couldn’t end the process. (preferred to pay) Contrariwise, waitresses who are aware that the owner/supervisor is not dependable often resort to reporting to the police or opt to shout to the guards of the hotel. (who were aware) Although waitresses rarely experience violence from female customers, the most common perpetrators involved in the violence were males (In Conclusion) (rarely experienced) It is good to go. However, I request the authors to re-read the manuscript because all the grammatical errors (minor) could not be reflected in reviewer's comment and those can corrected by the authors themselves. Thank you. Reviewer #2: The review comments by the reviewer have been worked on. The only outstanding thing is the paragraphs are very long and need to be worked on. The following have been worked on: a. Methodology issues like the selection according to the ‘industry- hotel, restaurant, grocery and store has been explained and the representation of the same; 2. Results & Discussions: Different types of violence discussed and the most severe highlighted while the discussion is rich, including other empirical studies 3. Make the conclusion strong so that we hear the gap that existed and how it has been met through this study. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261883.r005
Formally Accepted
16 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Samantha C Winter, Editor PONE-D-21-09783R2 Victimizations and Surviving of Workplace Violence against Waitresses in Southern Ethiopia Dear Dr. Zewude: 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. Samantha C Winter Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261883.r006

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 .