Job satisfaction among healthcare workers in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic

Emilia Barili; Paola Bertoli; Veronica Grembi; Veronica Rattini

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275334

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 3, 2022
31 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary, Editor PONE-D-22-00138Job Satisfaction Among Healthcare Workers in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic1PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Grembi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it requires modifications to 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. Prior to further steps, it is necessary to organize your manuscript per the PLOS ONE's guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines): Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 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, Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. During the internal evaluation of the submission we have noted the following statement: "f this research was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Pavia (Italy) to which Emilia Barili affiliated at the time of the survey" Please could you clarify whether author Emilia Barili is affiliated with the research ethics committee which provided ethical approval. If no, please could you revise this text to avoid confusion. 4. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Paola Bertoli is the recipient of a Rita Levi Montalcini Fellowship to promote the moving back in Italian University of Young Italian Scholars based abroad and willing to come back to Italy" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 7. We note that Figures 1 and 3 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: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 3 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].” b. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting the results of your study to the PLOS ONE. Prior to further steps, it is necessary to organize your manuscript per the PLOS ONE's guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines): Manuscripts should be organized as follows: Beginning section The following elements are required, in order: Title page: List title, authors, and affiliations as first page of the manuscript Abstract Introduction Middle section The following elements can be renamed as needed and presented in any order: Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions (optional) Ending section The following elements are required, in order: Acknowledgments References Supporting information captions (if applicable) Other elements Figure captions are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which the figure is cited. Figure files are uploaded separately. Tables are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which they are cited. Supporting information files are uploaded separately. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275334.r001
Revision 1
16 May 2022 Author Response Dear Prof. Taghizadeh-Hesary, Thank you for your letter of January 31st. We reviewed the paper as to make sure it complies with PLOS ONE's style requirements and we adopted the PLOS ONE’s Latex template. Moreover, we now clearly specify in the text that each participant provided written informed consent that was embedded in the first page of the questionnaire and we provide the specific details on the Ethics committee that approved our survey (i.e., the Ethics committee of the University of Verona, called Comitato di Approvazione per la Ricerca sull'Uomo''). We also confirm that the reported funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. In what follows, we answer to each of the specific points raised in your letter detailing how these have been taken into account in the revised version. We hope that this revised version will bring us nearer to a publication in PLON ONE and we again thank you for this opportunity and look forward to hearing from you at your convenience. Best regards, Emilia Barili, Paola Bertoli, Veronica Grembi and Veronica Rattini COMMENTS AND RELATED REPLIES 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 A: The manuscript has been reviewed to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Specifically, we adapt the Title formatting and insert the correct authors’ information. We eliminate the Section and Subsection numbering. The main sections are now Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusion. We took care of Tables and Figures formatting the related captions, as well as of footnotes. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. A: We obtained written informed consent from each participant at the beginning of the questionnaire. Specifically, the first screen provided participants with information about the content of the survey, its intended use and a privacy statement. After this information, each participant was asked whether she agreed to provide her consent for participation. If participants clicked on the option “Yes, I consent to participate in the survey”, they proceeded with the questionnaire. If they opted for “No, I do not consent to participate in the survey”, they were re-directed to an ending screen. Our study does not include minors and does not use medical records or achieved samples. 3. During the internal evaluation of the submission we have noted the following statement: "this research was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Pavia (Italy) to which Emilia Barili affiliated at the time of the survey" Please could you clarify whether author Emilia Barili is affiliated with the research ethics committee which provided ethical approval. If no, please could you revise this text to avoid confusion. A: Emilia Barili was affiliated with the University of Pavia at the time of the survey, but she was not directly affiliated or connected to the Ethics committee of the University of Pavia 4. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. A: We adopted the PLOS LaTex template as requested. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Paola Bertoli is the recipient of a Rita Levi Montalcini Fellowship to promote the moving back in Italian University of Young Italian Scholars based abroad and willing to come back to Italy" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. A: The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. A: We now specify in the “Materials and Methods” section what follows: “The survey was approved by the ``Comitato di Approvazione per la Ricerca sull'Uomo'', that is, the Ethics Committee of the University of Verona (Prot. N. 0221872 - 22/06/2020) and registered at AEA-RCT registry (AEARCTR-0007419), while the University of Pavia certified compliance with privacy requirements (Prot. N. 61080 - 15/06/2020). All participants gave their written informed consent that was embedded on the first page of the questionnaire.” 7. We note that Figures 1 and 3 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: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 3 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].” b. 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. A: Figures 1 and 3 do not contain copyrighted images, but rather images we produced. We now specify this in the footnotes to the figures. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting the results of your study to the PLOS ONE. Prior to further steps, it is necessary to organize your manuscript per the PLOS ONE's guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines): Manuscripts should be organized as follows: Beginning section The following elements are required, in order: Title page: List title, authors, and affiliations as first page of the manuscript Abstract Introduction Middle section The following elements can be renamed as needed and presented in any order: Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions (optional) Ending section The following elements are required, in order: Acknowledgments References Supporting information captions (if applicable) Other elements Figure captions are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which the figure is cited. Figure files are uploaded separately. Tables are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which they are cited. Supporting information files are uploaded separately. A: We re-organized the structure of the paper as requested. In particular, the paper now includes Abstract, Introduction, a section providing information on the institutional setting, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusions. We also included the applicable required elements as, among others, acknowledgements and references. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: respone_reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275334.r002
20 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary, Editor PONE-D-22-00138R1Job Satisfaction Among Healthcare Workers in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic1PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Grembi, 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. ================================================================= ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please find the reviewers' comments to improve the manuscript. ================================================================= Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 04 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, Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary Academic 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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: Manuscript presents a current and important theme in the elaboration of human resources policies in the health area, the COVID-19 pandemic was a learning experience, including the need for rapid activation of emergency programs in public health. It presents important and significant results. I add some considerations for the authors' evaluation. 1- How were the other health professionals (571) included in the analysis? Or just in the methodology of the study? 2- The authors mention the nurses' resilience and that they have less intention of changing profession or specialization. Resilience is due only to personal factors or also to the employability of nurses compared to doctors, reducing the intention to change profession or specialization. Reviewer #2: #P 2 Line 37: after [18] There must be some word, it seems to be missing. #P2 Line 46-53 : These statements should not be included in the introduction part with the discussion, theses should be moved to the discussion part. As well as line 64 onwards till the end of the introduction part. Introduction part should be written in past tense as well the methodology part. #P5 Research design should the written before the heading of "materials and methods" Reviewer #3: Dear author, this is an interesting paper about the job satisfaction of healtcare workers after the onset of Covid-19 pandemic. However, the study design doesn't allow to evaluate it's effective impact on those workers, because no data are available about the status of the sample before the pandemic. A longitudinal study could be the best choice to perform the evaluation you intented to do. In addition, to make a stronger evaluation of job satisfaction, you could use a validated tool like The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) or others. Other issues with this manuscript are the follow: - Many studies performed in italy in the same period have not been cited, even if they could help to better understand the context in which the study has been performed (i.e. De Sio et al). - English language is quite good even if there are many long sentences and others are quite complex to be understood. - No response rate has been provided. - The introduction section is too long and, at the end, it deals with results and conclusions that should be put at the end of the paper, not at the beginning. - The limits of the research have not been disclosed (selection bias etc) - The authors state that they focused on the respondents from northern Italy, but they didn't indicate how many respondents came from there and how many from other parts of the country - Many question of the survey have not been justified in relation to the aims of the study (i.e. homes dimensions etc). I think that the paper needs those and more others corrections to be accepted for publication. Reviewer #4: 1. Introduction: "with more than 7,000 respondents (about 2,500 physicians and 4,500 nurses) conducted". Please designate the exact numbers of participants. 2. Introduction section is too long. It is recommended the authors summarize the Introduction section (in 1000-1500 words) representing the importance of the study and how the study can fill the literature gap. Many paragraphs-describing the similar articles in other countries- can be discussed in the Discussion section. 3. Please follow the guidelines of scientific writing. 4. Please cite the following Covid-19 related article in the Introduction section: - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8184167/ 5. Introduction: It may not be necessary to describe the first Covid-19 wave in Italy in details. It is suggested the authors summarize this section in a paragraph. 6. Figs. 1 and 3 can be submitted as supplementary materials. 7. Please follow the Journal guideline to prepare the manuscript. For example, the Results and Discussion sections must be presented separately. It is recommended the author refer to the PLOS ONE guideline for authors. 8. Please add a table summarizing the basic characteristics of the participants. 9. Many figures have been submitted. It is recommended the authors merge Figs. 4-12 to three figures. Figure 13 can be explained in the text and be omitted. Figure 2 can be submitted as a supplementary material. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Maria Carlota Borba Brum Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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.0275334.r003
Revision 2
3 Aug 2022 Author Response We have attached the file Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reply_reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275334.r004
14 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary, Editor Job Satisfaction Among Healthcare Workers in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic1 PONE-D-22-00138R2 Dear Dr. Grembi, 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, Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary 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 #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: 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: All my questions have been addressed. I think that the paper has improved and it is now suitable for puplication. ****** 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: Yes: GIUSEPPE BUOMPRISCO ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275334.r005
Formally Accepted
28 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary, Editor PONE-D-22-00138R2 Job satisfaction among healthcare workers in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic Dear Dr. Grembi: 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. Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275334.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 .