PONE-D-22-18562Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early career dementia researchers: A global online surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bartels,

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 Oct 19 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,

Maria Elisabeth Johanna Zalm, Ph.D

Editorial Office

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 amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 "No funding was received for this work specifically. CES was funded by grant T32AG055381 from the National Institute on Aging of the United States National Institutes of Health. AS is funded by the National Institute for Health Research through the NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre." 

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. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. "A summary report of the complete survey (raw data, non peer-reviewed) is also published under Smith A, Shaaban CE, Bartels SL, Welikovitch L, Brum W, Folarin R. Listening to Early Career Researchers [Report]. 2022 [Available from: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk/survey." Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium "ISTAART PIA". In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your manuscript has been assessed by one peer-reviewer and their report is appended below. 

The reviewer comments that the manuscript could be strengthened by providing more detail to certain aspects of the study, including the introduction, methodology, and discussion section. In addition, the reviewer states that the results should be interpreted more cautiously, and the limitations section requires more attention. 

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 is an interesting paper worthy of publication as it focuses on the impact on early career researchers. It is well written and has some useful recommendations at the end of the paper. I have some suggestions for strengthening the paper.

Abstract- I do think the results could include the findings about conference attendance as the change to remote delivery has been one of the few positive impacts of the pandemic. The conclusion section could be re-written to provide stronger conclusion to the abstract, rather than writing a list of content try instead to focus on the main messages from the paper.

Introduction (page 3) I would advise including a definition of ECR given this is the focus of the paper.

Introduction (page 3) The first paragraph could make more of why this is an important area to look at. I appreciate the need to understand the experiences of dementia ECRs, but this paper will be read by those from different disciplines.

Introduction (page 3) it wasn’t clear if all the studies you were reviewing were specifically conducted to explore the impact of the pandemic on researchers.

Introduction (page 4) you discuss important studies that were conducted despite the pandemic. Would be worth a reference to those studies that were conducted to explore the impact of the pandemic on people with dementia and carers, these happened despite all the challenges around recruitment.

Method (page 6) please provide more details of the questionnaire topics, this could be in the form of a supplementary document.

Method (page 6) it would be useful to contextualise the time period data collection period in relation to the pandemic

Results (page 9) “delay I their projects” is that their own projects (e.g. PhD project) or the PIs project? Or is that not clear in the data. Delays have different implications depending on roles within the project.

Results (page 9/10) I would advise I more cautious interpretation of the findings. You state nearly two-thirds felt at least somewhat unsupported but the data shows only 19.9% felt unsupported. Whilst, 41.2% felt employers were generally supported but could do better, I don’t see this data as implying they were somewhat unsupported because they said they were generally supported. I would apply this comment to how you have reported the results in the abstract and on page 13 of the discussion section where you say only 1 in 3 ECRs were satisfied with the support.

Discussion (page 13) with the discussion of the gender differences in the data it might be worth a reference to the “dementia research career pipeline” 2022 paper which looked at gender differences.

Discussion- before you get to discussing the lessons learnt it is worth some discussion of the finding about conference attendance.

Discussion (page 14) you mention continental trends with regards to reactions to the pandemic, worth considering issues around access to technologies both for researchers and participants e.g. for remote interviewing.

Discussion (Page 15) Data collection and publishing, I think there are other ways for ECRs getting findings out there and building their profile e.g. through twitter or tik tok.

Discussion (Page 16)- A couple of issues to consider for funding. One for funders providing funding for longer periods e.g. UK Alz Soc recently changed to funding 4 years of a PhD as recognised students do need longer than 3 years. Second funding to be sufficient for people to be paid living wages e.g. with the current crisis PhD stipends are not sufficient and many PhD students are taking on second jobs.

Discussion (Page 17), promotion, again this is just my opinion, but one thing is to include Covid-19 impact statements in promotion applications so people can talk about the impact on them e.g. if they had to reduce hours for caring duties during the pandemic.

Discussion (Page 18)- improve ECRs well-being. Support for ECRs should also include support for line managers and PIs, emotionally supporting ECRs can take its toll.

Discussion (page 18) limitations. You need to acknowledge that sample self-defined as ECRs so it looks like you have some associate prof/ Profs in the sample with aren’t typically seen as ECRs. The study didn’t specifically include mid-career dementia researchers. By using questionnaire methods it meant that pertinent issues couldn’t be followed up with participants as could be done with an interview e.g. clearly some people were unable to finish their research- why was that?

**********

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

**********

[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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early career dementia researchers: A global online survey

PONE-D-22-18562R1

Dear Dr. Bartels

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,

Gabriel G. De La Torre

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I consider that authors have improved the article with this revision and despite some concerns regarding characteristics of the sample (mostly women), the manuscript in its present form can be accepted for publication.

**********