Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 25, 2022
Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor

PONE-D-22-11468The principles of recovery-oriented mental health services: A review of the guidelines from five different countriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. MA Subandi,

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 01 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,

Rogis Baker, 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 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.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was funded by Innovative and Productive Research Program, the Minister of Finance, the Government of Indonesia

The authors who received the award: MAS CM TT AM are

Grant numbers : 110/LPDP/2019

URL funder :https://lpdp.kemenkeu.go.id/riset/kebijakan-rispros-umum/”

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.

5. 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: The paper is well organized and has a clear viewpoint, outlining 7 principles of recovery-oriented mental health services. However, we see that in Method, the inductive thematic analysis was conducted by multiple people, which may have errors in the generalization of different concepts. Although a joint theme review was subsequently conducted, it is not stated whether there was a uniform quality control by senior professionals to reduce the possible errors.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for asking me to review this manuscript titled: “The principles of recovery-oriented mental health services: A review of the guidelines from five different countries”

The authors have written a manuscript that summarizes the theoretical background to their attempt towards developing a guideline for establishing a recovery-oriented mental health service in Indonesia. Their decision to leverage what has been implemented in other countries establishes a firm theoretical foundation for their intended program. I have no reservations in recommending that their manuscript be published as this will form a guide for other developed countries who might desire to pursue the same course.

However, I have some concerns.

Title

The title does not seem to capture the essence of this manuscript. The manuscript isn’t just about a review. It is a review of guidelines for the development of a protocol. This is also seen in the conclusion of the abstract where the authors write “We will adjust and implement the result of the review in our project focusing on developing recovery-oriented mental health service in the community health centre in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We hope that this framework will be adopted by the central government in Indonesia and other developing countries”. I suggest that the title should be modified to reflect what this manuscript is about.

Aim

The authors stated that the aim of the review is to guide the direction of the entire project. This doesn’t suffice as a specific aim of the manuscript. If the aim is to guide the direction of the entire project, then the title should actually be about the entire project. The authors need to determine the aim of the research, and let it be in tandem with the title.

Methods

The authors stated that “We did not use formal search engines, such as Scopus, EBSCO, or ProQuest, since they mostly search for journal articles that do not have practical guidelines.” Are they sure that they would not have missed out on some studies? This might need to be stated as a limitation. Restricting the publications to those written in English should also be stated as a limitation.

A chart showing how the publications reviewed were excluded before the final selection can also be helpful.

Results

Expatiating on the results from line 182 downwards looked more like discussions which needed to be cited. There is a need to rewrite this section.

Discussion

The aim needs to be properly phrased to make it be in tandem with the discussion as it is. Otherwise, the discussion will appear to be superfluous.

Many thanks for this opportunity.

********** 

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: Olanrewaju Ibikunle Ibigbami

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx
Revision 1

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The paper is well organized and has a clear viewpoint, outlining 7 principles of recovery-oriented mental health services. However, we see that in Method, the inductive thematic analysis was conducted by multiple people, which may have errors in the generalization of different concepts. Although a joint theme review was subsequently conducted, it is not stated whether there was a uniform quality control by senior professionals to reduce the possible errors.

Response:

We have added one sentence to follow this suggestion (lines 161-162)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for asking me to review this manuscript titled: “The principles of recovery-oriented mental health services: A review of the guidelines from five different countries”

The authors have written a manuscript that summarizes the theoretical background to their attempt towards developing a guideline for establishing a recovery-oriented mental health service in Indonesia. Their decision to leverage what has been implemented in other countries establishes a firm theoretical foundation for their intended program. I have no reservations in recommending that their manuscript be published as this will form a guide for other developed countries who might desire to pursue the same course.

However, I have some concerns.

Title

The title does not seem to capture the essence of this manuscript. The manuscript isn’t just about a review. It is a review of guidelines for the development of a protocol. This is also seen in the conclusion of the abstract where the authors write “We will adjust and implement the result of the review in our project focusing on developing recovery-oriented mental health service in the community health centre in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We hope that this framework will be adopted by the central government in Indonesia and other developing countries”. I suggest that the title should be modified to reflect what this manuscript is about.

Response:

We have changed the title to follow this suggestion (lines 3-4)

Aim

The authors stated that the aim of the review is to guide the direction of the entire project. This doesn’t suffice as a specific aim of the manuscript. If the aim is to guide the direction of the entire project, then the title should actually be about the entire project. The authors need to determine the aim of the research, and let it be in tandem with the title.

Response:

We added some words so that the aim aligns with the title (lines 32-33).

Methods

The authors stated that “We did not use formal search engines, such as Scopus, EBSCO, or ProQuest, since they mostly search for journal articles that do not have practical guidelines.” Are they sure that they would not have missed out on some studies? This might need to be stated as a limitation. Restricting the publications to those written in English should also be stated as a limitation.

A chart showing how the publications reviewed were excluded before the final selection can also be helpful.

Response:

We added limitations of the study in the end of the Discussion section (lines 1016-1037)

Results

Expatiating on the results from line 182 downwards looked more like discussions which needed to be cited. There is a need to rewrite this section.

Discussion

The aim needs to be properly phrased to make it be in tandem with the discussion as it is. Otherwise, the discussion will appear to be superfluous.

Response:

We have made a significant change in the Result and Discussion sections. First, following the reviewers' suggestions, we checked the themes identified in the previous analysis by using the keywords of each theme and calculated the frequency of each theme in the guidelines. Based on this frequency, we could make an order of the list for the theme. Another significant change in the Result is that we explicitly mention and refer to the guidelines as the source of analysis. By doing this, the readers can differentiate the Result section (using References from the guidelines) from the Discussion session (using References from the literature).

Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor

The principles of recovery-oriented mental health services: A review of the guidelines from five different countries for developing a protocol to be implemented in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

PONE-D-22-11468R1

Dear Dr. MA Subandi,

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,

Rogis Baker, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

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 .