https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7577-827X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 13, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-32156 Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: what are the lessons learned? PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Huijnen, 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 manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. You will see Reviewer 2 has commented on the timeliness of your manuscript. However, both reviewers have raised concerns and the manuscript will need significant revision before it can be considered for publication – you should anticipate that the reviewers will be re-invited to assess the revised manuscript, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. I have outlined some of the key concerns noted by the reviewers below, but you should respond to all concerns mentioned by the reviewers in your response-to-reviewers document. The key concerns noted by the reviewers are the need to expand definitions of the study terminology (e.g., “matched care approach” and “integrated transmural network”), additional information about the assessment tools, and clarity about the study sample and setting. Specifically, Reviewer 2 noted a discrepancy between the study sample and the sample size calculation presented in the previously published protocol. These issues impact the interpretation of the results and should be explored. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 20 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, Danielle Poole Staff 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. 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 3. Please include additional information regarding the content validation survey or questionnaire used in the study to assess the HCPs views on patients with CMP, their current referral pattern, and patient characteristics and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. Furthermore please provide a copy of the questionnaire as supporting information. 4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 5. Please remove the "CONFIDE" watermark that you currently have in the background of your manuscript pages. 6. 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 delete it from any other section. 7. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 8. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. 9. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Figure 1 Construction of the health care system in Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg. Published in Lamper et al. (2019) [22]. Inclusion of this figure in the current submission does not constitute dual publication as the information in this figure is about the content of the intervention. The previous publication was in the protocol article. And logically, the intervention in this results article did not change from the version published in the protocol article.] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. 10. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: [IH, AK, and JV report grants from Health Insurance Companies CZ, VGZ and Achmea, during the conduct of the study. The other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. ]. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests [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: 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: 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: No 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: Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: what are the lessons learned? Abstract: Avoid abbreviations in the abstract Abstract, results: “One barrier is stigmatization…” Barrier for what? Abstract, results: What are “non-participating” HCPs? Are these people who did not agree to participate in your study? If yes, how did you collect and analyzed their data? Abstract, results: I do not understand what is the link between a HCP that uses approached more biomedical to lead to patients resist participating in NPRL? Was this an hypothesis of the study? Abstract, results: The sentence that cultural, structural and financial aspects are barriers, this sentence needs a bit more details to explain what exactly are these barriers. Abstract, results: “HCPs preferred the iterative, bottom-up strategy”. They preferred this as opposed to what other strategy? Introduction Line 68. Do we all know and do we all agree what is the right care, at the right place and the right time? This is a jargon that is often quoted by politicians, but I am not sure there is agreement about what this means. If this is the case, then, perhaps the right place to start would be to work on a document that outlines exactly what this right care, at the right place and right time means. Page 75, can you please explain what “transmural” means? It is not a term commonly used where I am. The use of abbreviations really make this introduction hard to read. Line 79. What is the meaning of “integrated matched care”? METHODS Line 122. What is a “matched care approach” and what is “integrated transmural network”? Line 124 starts explaining what is “matched care approach”, but it does not explain what is matched? Are the patients matched to a HCP and they stay with this same professional along all the way? Is this what the “matched” implies? Line 125 starts explaining what “integrated” means, and I am still not clear what it is. Does this implies that al patients completed the same sorts of questionnaires and were all examined the same way? And that all these questionnaires were available to everyone in the same electronic medical records? Line 138. What is transmural? Line 140. Are GPs the same as family doctors in The Netherlands? Line 141. Were nurse practitioners and pharmacists excluded from participating? Line 142. What is a “local network”? Is this the same as a group practice where the physicians and non-physicians receive a fixed salary and are not reimbursed as a fee-for-service type of payment? Line 157. Was there any accreditation or training for these HCPs in order to teach them on the best practices and clinical practice guidelines related to the management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain? Line 157. Are there “pain clinics” in The Netherlands? Are these mostly for interventional pain procedures offered by anesthetists? Could patients have access to interventional pain medicine if they needed? Line 200. I do not understand why the goal of this phase was “to organize care in daily practice”. I would say that this should be the goal of Phase 1. Line 211. What do you mean by “small questionnaires”? Line 240. Is this “Results”? If yes, there should be a subheading here? Line 240. This is the first time that “Assessment tool 1 and tool 2” appear in the manuscript. Should they be described in the methods? Please describe in terms of what are they, who uses them, when they use them and why. Line 250. Can a brief explanation of these treatment protocols and guidelines be provided in the methods? Line 256. “reduced number of consultations prescribed”. I am not sure what this means. Can people prescribe consultations? Line 271. This is the first time that Ehealth is mentioned in the manuscript. I suggest to describe this in the methods. Line 282. What is the link between eHealth application and adherence to treatment? Do patients have access to their own medical records? I thought the patients were only entering data for questionnaires. Line 286. Are patients asked to complete daily questionnaires about pain and pain intensity? Is it ethical to ask patients to do this? There is a strong body of evidence showing that the more time a person spend thinking about their pain, the higher the chances of this pain becoming chronic, it is like creating a permanent memory of pain in the brain. Line 290. It is not clear how the collaboration was achieved. Were the patients seen by the different professionals individually in different occasions (multi-professional approach), or where the patients seen by all professions simultaneously (inter-professional approach)? Line 299. “young and dynamic” How do you define that? Line 300. What is a local network? Is it based on a geographical area? A funding model? A group of professionals connected by the same eHealth system? The same source of funding? Line 304. What is a “more biomedically oriented treatment”? Could these be things like acupuncture, massage, modalities, injections, oral medications, topical creams? Line 310. Please give details about what these education days offered. Line 311. Who developed these protocols? Were they developed with input from primary care professionals? Line 321. Mission and vision. Are these mission and vision for the feasibility study? For the network? Line 322. “most health care practices” – does this refer to the practices included in the feasibility study? Or is this about practices in general in The Netherlands? Line 468. This is the first time an advisory board is mentioned. Please mention in the methods that an advisory board was employed. Reviewer #2: Dear authors: thank you for letting me to comment on your work The topic of this manuscript is timely because it deals with a topic with potential for improvement in the treatment of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study can help in the process of improving the organization of healthcare for patients with chronic pain and emphasizes the biopsychosocial approach in the management of patients. The manuscript is well written and understandable. I just have to make a few small observations that may help improve the manuscript The authors have followed COREG criteria for reporting qualitative research. I am happy to know this because this is a good quality criteria. Please provide response to the 32 item checklist. Most of the items are considered in the manuscript, but some are not Another aspect that denotes quality and rigor is that the authors have previously published the protocol of the study they planned to do (BMJ Open. 2019; 9 (6): e025962). However, in this protocol it was intended to evaluate approximately 100 patients that would receive questionnaires regarding satisfaction with care and their health status and pain-related disability, and 10 patients for the focus group. Finally only 58 patients participated in the program, and 6 of them in the focus group. It would be interesting to have information about satisfaction of patients and disability to know the impact of the program on them. Also Please explain the reason, if any, for not having reached the planned number of patients In general the writing style is friendly and well written. However the phrase about the inclusion criteria is confusing for me (page 6; lines 163-166) “They were excluded from the study if there was any suspicion of a medical (orthopaedic, rheumatic, or neurological) disease or (underlying) psychiatric disease that could explain the current pain complaints (e.g. rheumatism or hernia) and/or that could be treated by adequate existing therapy”. The conjunction and/or is misleading. If the conjunction "or" is used, it is implied that those patients with a medical diagnosis that explains symptoms will be excluded, regardless of whether they do not have effective treatment of their condition. If this is the case, for example an epicondylitis or a spondylolisthesis (both specific diagnoses, but in many cases without effective treatment) would be excluded. Please explain exclusion criteria The author used Assessment tool 1 for HCP in primary care and Assessment tool 2 for secondary and tertiary care. I can not find Assessment tool 2 in supplementary material In Assessment tool 1 for Primary Care, the flow chart for classifying patients is in Dutch. Please provide a translation In conclusion, it is a very interesting article that I would like to see published. It is a feasibility study that can help clinicians and managers to implement an integrative network program for the management of patients with chronic pain ********** 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: Yes: Julio Domenech [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-20-32156R1Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: what are the lessons learned?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lamper, 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 18 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:
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, Jianhong Zhou Staff 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 #3: (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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: The study was extensively revised. However, to make it more understandable in my opinion it could be useful to add as supporting information what is written in the published protocol: in particular, the explanation of the primary, secondary and tertiary care with the short related protocol. ********** 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 #3: 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 2 |
|
PONE-D-20-32156R2Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: what are the lessons learned?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lamper, 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. Specifically, the in-house editorial staff feels that your study should be registered as a clinical trial. In particular, the participants were subject to changes in treatment approach, and health related outcomes were collected as part of the study. There is no need to provide clinical trial related documents (e.g. trial protocol or the CONSORT flow diagram) and to report the work as a clinical trial (i.e. no need to change article type into "clinical trial"), but we do request having your study registered before we proceed. Please see the WHO list of approved registries at http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/index.html and more information on trial registration at http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/clinical-trials-registration/). Please state the name of the registry and the registration number (e.g. ISRCTN or ClinicalTrials.gov) in the submission data and on the title page of your manuscript when you resubmit. If you do not feel your study should be registered, please contact the journal office (plosone@plos.org) and explain your reasons. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 26 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:
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, Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS ONE [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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: The revised form of this study has been extensively modified. In this way in my opinion the study can be published ********** 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 #3: 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 3 |
|
Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: what are the lessons learned? PONE-D-20-32156R3 Dear Dr. Lamper, 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-32156R3 Exploring the feasibility of a network of organizations for pain rehabilitation: what are the lessons learned? Dear Dr. Lamper: 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 Jianhong Zhou Staff 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 .