PONE-D-22-26426A national professional development program fills mentoring gaps for postdoctoral researchersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hokanson,

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.

==============================

Generally this is a well written manuscript that needs some minor revisions.  As both reviewers suggest, the introduction should be have a stronger focus on published work in post-doc professional development as well as MOOCs in professional development. This will mostly likely increase the length of the introduction, but will situate the study in a broader context. Expanding the description of engage learners and how they engaged with the material would benefit this study.  Expanding the analysis of the qualitative data as suggested by reviewer 2 would enhance the quantitative results. The reviewers have several other points that should be addressed.  In addition to their comments, it is not evident in the manuscript if the definition of URM includes the international post-docs in the URM sample or only the United States URM post-docs. It would help figure 2 if each panel in the figure was given a letter and then in the manuscript when referring to panels in figure 2 use both figure 2 and the letter. That would reduce the cognitive load on readers. I also noticed a typo in Figure 1, in the bottom right box cultural is misspelled.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2023 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,

Sue Ellen DeChenne-Peters, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

* Please change "caucasian” to "white” or "European" as appropriate (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities).

* Please provide additional details regarding ethical approval in the body of your manuscript. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified the name of the IRB/ethics committee that approved your study.

* Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). 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.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. 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 more 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 sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) 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. 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.

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: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: 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: This manuscript presents on an evaluation of an online course for postdoctoral fellows. The team build an online module to help postdocs with their career development. The evaluation included a pre and post survey that assessed one’s self reported perception of skill improvement. Overall, the evaluation and methodology used is rigorous, as is the data analysis. They team used both qualitative and quantitative approach for this mixed method design. The data analysis included subgroup comparisons to determine if there was a different impact for those who are underrepresented, as well as gender, country, and discipline. Some minor comments may help improve the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript is extremely well-written.

1. The introduction seems quite lengthy. This could be shortened with a sharper focus on postdoctoral training.

2. On page 8, when discussing the sample, this seems like an extremely biased sample. That is, those who completed the course and the post survey would more likely be those who saw the potential for the module to help them. Those who dropped or didn’t complete are likely those who didn’t see the value or did not think the course was helping them.

3. The definition of Engaged Learner seems quite broad. Is it that it includes anyone who has done one exercise within the module? So, if someone only watched a 5 min video, they would be considered Engaged? To me, I would see someone who is engaged as someone who has completed about 50% of the work.

4. In Table 1, Matched sample is listed as a row, but not described in text.

5. On page 11 in the discussion of the prompts, I think the explanation of the prompts could be a bit clearer. I was uncertain as to how they were presented to the postdoc and if they were part of the module’s learning content or if this was solely for qualitative analysis.

6. For those postdocs who were not on the binary, how were their data treated? Were they dropped for analysis?

7. I know the qualitative results show some trends that URM made more progress than the majority postdocs. Are you able to test for significant improvements?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript describes a massive open online course (MOOC) designed to build postdocs’ skills in career transition, career planning, collaborative research, resilience and self-reflection. Quantitative, self-reported learning outcomes data gathered from participants show skills gains in all the targeted areas of learning, with higher gains reported by historically underrepresented participants. Qualitative analysis of work products generated by course participants indicate that networking and mentor support may be crucial to advancing skills in these areas.

The premise of this study is thought-provoking, and the results are compelling. I have included some suggestions below to make the article even stronger.

While well-written overall, the article would be strengthened by the inclusion of some additional references and discussion of relevant articles, as space allows. Specifically:

• The authors could incorporate more published work on post-doc professional development, and the targeted domains of learning that have been identified and pursued, including work from scholars such as Fuhrmann and Sinche. It was especially odd that the work of Steen et. al was not included since it was referenced in the cover letter as a research article this study was built upon.

• The authors could include some additional references about the success of using MOOCs as an approach to professional development in general, or specifically for post-doc professional development.

The materials and methods section, data sources, and data analysis sections are well done. This reviewer would suggest a few additions in these sections:

• Additional clarification of when and how the participant responses to the six selected prompts are captured. Are these responses collected at a single time point at the end of the course or from a reflection activity which participants can add to over time?

• It is noted that 83% of the participants were post-docs; it would help if the authors added information on the career stages of the other 17%, if known.

• Additional clarification on how the learners in this study engaged in the various elements and modes of the course. The text notes: “Learners can participate in the course by watching course videos or reading video transcripts, participating in discussions, completing individual reflections, and engaging with interactive learning activities.” It also notes that learners are considered to have completed the course “if they do at least 5 activities.” Are the completed engagement modes and activities tracked? If so, it would be interesting to know if there were any correlations seen between skill gains and levels/types of engagements.

The quantitative results included in the article are strong and engaging. This reviewer suggests including one additional piece of quantitative data:

• Satisfaction/Usefulness of the four modules and the various approaches to learning. It is noted in the discussion: “Also, we believe videos that share stories and perspectives of diverse postdocs invite diverse learners to engage. We know from previous work that integrating self-reflection prompts and interactive activities create opportunities for participants to apply module concepts and directly facilitate their learning.” This discussion point could be supported more strongly with satisfaction data from learners across the content and modalities.

The qualitative results included in the article are intriguing and could be expanded and deepened. One possibility includes:

• Analyses of the qualitative data by gender and nationality across at least the 4 identified codes. These analyses would strengthen the link between the quantitative and quantitative results. For example, if differences were seen only for URM/non URM learners in both the quantitative and qualitative data, it would enhance understanding. If instead, the only differences seen are in the qualitative data for demographics beyond ethnicity, that would also enhance understanding. Moreover, several points in the discussion related to the qualitative data raise questions about other identities. For example, the literature exploring gender, balancing multiple responsibilities and resilience skills, identity/ belonging and nationality might cause one to hypothesize differences in responses to the qualitative prompts.

The discussion raises some interesting points and would benefit from some deeper exploration. For example, the authors state that “Our findings can be interpreted as a readily accessible, pedagogically inclusive and interactive means for URM postdocs to advance their skills, thus reducing the mentoring gap.” Do the authors have evidence that the learners felt the modules filled in a gap in their mentoring? Is it possible that the course did not fill a gap but rather heightened awareness about the need to expand their mentoring network to meet needs outside the course? Another example: the authors state “In the third module, Developing Resilience, we engage postdocs in learning, reflecting on, and applying resilience skills, and provided more information about resources and support services for emotional support or mental and psychological well-being.” Do the authors have data from learners that these resources were useful?

Minor edits:

• I believe the reference to the S1 text should be to S2 on page 11

• The identification of the quotes from URM or non-URM should be consistent in the results.

**********

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: Christine Pfund

**********

[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.

A national professional development program fills mentoring gaps for postdoctoral researchers

PONE-D-22-26426R1

Dear Dr. Hokanson,

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,

Sue Ellen DeChenne-Peters, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This revised manuscript adequately addressed the reviewers concerns. It is a well-written manuscript that presents the impact of an online course, showing significant improvements in those who took the course.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Christine Pfund

**********