Bibliometric analysis of hotspots and frontiers in cancer-related fatigue among ovarian cancer survivors

Yuanxia Liu; Qianxia Liu; Xiaolian Jiang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274802

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 4, 2022
8 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade, Editor PONE-D-22-12589Bibliometric Analysis of Hotspots and Frontiers in Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Ovarian Cancer SurvivorsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jiang, 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 Sep 22 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, Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 3. 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. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: 1 . All the sections of the paper were well written. 2. The word count for the abstract was more than the prescribed number 3. Though the authors mentioned the limitation of the study but it will also be nice to include the strength of the study as well. Reviewer #2: There is a disjoint between paragraph 3 and 4 . Paragraph 4 is a whole new concept and very unrelated to paragraph and was not properly introduced to assist the reader in understanding the concept. The objective of the research was not SMART. Data analysis was not described in clear terms as well as data presentation. The methods and tools used for data analysis were not described. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274802.r001
Revision 1
28 Aug 2022 Author Response Reference: PONE-D-22-12589 Title: Bibliometric Analysis of Hotspots and Frontiers in Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Ovarian Cancer Survivors Journal title: PLOS ONE Authors: Yuanxia Liu, Qianxia Liu, Xiaolian Jiang* Dear Editor Prof. Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade and dear reviewers, We would like to give sincere gratitude to the editor for his kind letter and the reviewers for their constructive comments on our article. These positive comments and valuable suggestions are extremely important for the improvement of our article. All authors are doing their best to revise the manuscript to meet the requirements of your journals. In the rest of this letter, we will discuss your comments one by one and respond to each of them accordingly. A general summarization of all changes made to the article will also be provided. The changes we have made to the manuscript are highlighted in red text in the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes for your convenience. 1 Reply to comments one by one 1.1 Reviewer #1 Comment 1. All the sections of the paper were well written. Respond 1. We are happy to hear you say that and thank you for your approval of our manuscript. Comment 2. The word count for the abstract was more than the prescribed number Respond 2. Thank you for your attention and patience. We have reduced the number of words in the abstract from the original 315 to 245, and these changes are all reflected in lines 15 to 54 of the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (Figure 1). Figure 1 Comment 3. Though the authors mentioned the limitation of the study but it will also be nice to include the strength of the study as well. Respond 3. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the strengths of this study to the article. These modifications can be seen in lines 453 to 458 of the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (Figure 2). Figure 2 1.2 Reviewer #2 Comment 1. There is a disjoint between paragraph 3 and 4. Paragraph 4 is a whole new concept and very unrelated to paragraph and was not properly introduced to assist the reader in understanding the concept. Respond 1. Thank you for your suggestion. The writing between paragraph 3 and 4 is incoherent. The corrections are as follows: a) Paragraph 3 has been rewritten; b) Since the new concept mentioned in paragraph 4 is used in CiteSpace for results description and data analysis, this paragraph has been rewritten and placed in Data Analysis. These modifications can be seen in lines 91 to 119 of the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (Figure 3). Figure 3 Comment 2. The objective of the research was not SMART. Respond 2. Thank you for your precious suggestion. The specific objective of this study was to analyze the literature related to CRF in ovarian cancer patients published in WOSCC from 1991 - 2021 to understand the current state of research in the field and to provide evidence-based, visual evidence for scholars and policymakers. For this purpose, we used the bibliometric tool CiteSpace to measure the retrieved literature in terms of publication years, research countries/regions, institutions, authors, and journals to describe the current status and frontiers of research in the field. This article, finalized in May 2022, was written after a comprehensive search that included all literature in the field published in WOSCC up to December 31, 2021. We also provide further clarification in the article based on the reviewer's comment. These modifications can be seen in lines 120 to 126 of the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (Figure 4). Figure 4 Comment 3. Data analysis was not described in clear terms as well as data presentation. The methods and tools used for data analysis were not described. Respond 3. Thank you for your suggestion. The corrections are as follows: a) Because this paper uses the visual analysis tool Citespace, the data for countries/regions, institutions, and authors are mainly presented in graphical form (Figire2-7). Take Figure 2 as an example. The information in the upper left corner of the image describes the data including the software and version used, the date of the drawing, the timespan of the retrieved literature, the algorithm applied, network nodes, lines, and density. The image is also described appropriately in the Results of this paper. These descriptions can be seen on page 11 of lines 198-207, and 735-737 (Figure 5). Figure 5 b) Data analysis has been added (Figure 6). c) The methods and tools used for data analysis have been described (Figure 6). These modifications can be seen in lines 144 to 176 of the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes. Figure 6 2 Summarize all the modifications in the article 2.1 Page 2 of lines 15, 18-20, 23-30, 32-33 2.2 Page 3 of lines 34-42, 48, 50-54 2.3 Page 5 of lines 63 2.4 Page 6 of lines 85-86, 88, 91-101 2.5 Page 7 of lines 102-123 2.6 Page 8 of lines 139, 144-145 2.7 Page 9 of lines 146-167 2.8 Page 10 of lines 168-176 2.9 Page 14 of lines 242-244 2.10 Page 16 of lines 278 2.11 Page 25 of lines 433 2.12 Page 26 of lines 448, 453-458 2.13 Page 27 of lines 475-481 2.14 The reference format has been modified concerning journals that have been published in PLOS ONE. These modifications can be seen on Pages 28 to 33. 2.15 We have uploaded figures to the PACE digital diagnostic tool and revised the figures in the article to meet PLOS requirements. 2.16 There was an error in one author's affiliation, which has been corrected in the new manuscript. We are not sure if our modifications and explanations fully answer your question. If you need us to make any further modifications, please send us an email and we are willing to make further changes until our article meets the publication requirements of your journal. Thank you again for your time and interest. We look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, The Authors. （All figures can be seen in Response to Reviewers) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274802.r002
4 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade, Editor Bibliometric Analysis of Hotspots and Frontiers in Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Ovarian Cancer Survivors PONE-D-22-12589R1 Dear Dr. Jiang, 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, Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274802.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade, Editor PONE-D-22-12589R1 Bibliometric Analysis of Hotspots and Frontiers in Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Ovarian Cancer Survivors Dear Dr. Jiang: 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. Kehinde Sharafadeen Okunade Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274802.r004

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 .