Burnout syndrome among frontline doctors of secondary and tertiary care hospitals of Bangladesh during COVID-19 pandemic

Fahmida Rashid; Rabiul Alam Md. Erfan Uddin; H. M. Hamidullah Mehedi; Satyajit Dhar; Nur Hossain Bhuiyan; Md. Abdus Sattar; Shahanara Chowdhury

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277875

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 6, 2021
3 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Jamie Males, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-21-11241 Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of COVID Hospitals During COVID-19 Pandemic, Bangladesh PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rashid, 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. The reviewers have identified a number of aspects of your manuscript that require substantial revision in order to meet PLOS ONE's publication criteria. Please address each of their points carefully when preparing your revisions, paying particular attention to clarifying the sample size and incorporating additional references to provide adequate context to your study. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2021 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: http://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, Jamie Males Staff 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. 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. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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: Partly ******** 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: No 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 work provides an important insight to the challenges health professionals are facing in Bangladesh at the moment. I suggest the authors the following improvements. 1. The paper requires some editing, as it is not written in sound English and should not be accepted in its current form. The author(s) may get the manuscript revised by either a native English-speaker or someone who excels in English language for this purpose. 2. The introduction section is well-defined with adequate references. 3. The materials and methods section is described in detail. However, the results section has not been interpreted properly. 4. There are places, although not many, in the discussion section where relevant references should have been provided to strengthen the findings. Besides, a more comprehensive discussion on what needs be done for an improved outcome could enhance the value of the work. Reviewer #2: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors address a relevant and topical issue, such as the impact that work on the front line against covid has on health professionals. However, the manuscript can clearly be improved. The international literature on burnout in health professionals is extensive, as is the literature referring specifically to burnout during the COVID pandemic. In order for this article to be publishable, I believe that the authors must still make an important effort to go deeper both in the background and in the discussion. To do this, they must substantially expand the international literature they handle and reference (in the current version only 14 references, of which 6 are more than ten years old). Regarding the methodology and presentation of results, it is a longitudinal descriptive study and the results are presented in an adequate manner, although they could have been enriched by adding some additional variable (perceived stress, workload, quality of life ... .), which would allow a greater depth in the discussion and conclusions. There are small errors about the sample size (in method it is said that there are 165 professionals and in results it is said that 168). For all of them I believe that in its current version this manuscript does not meet the minimum requirements for publication, although I believe that the authors should continue to delve into this topic of such interest. ****** 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: Yes:** Shaharior Rahman Razu Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r001
Revision 1
12 Sep 2021 Author Response Response to Staff Editor Comments: 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response: We have formatted the revised manuscript and named the files according to the journal style according to the suggestion. 2. 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 Response: Data Availability Statement: The analyzed data is all in the manuscript. Four files of analyzed data uploaded as supporting file. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: According to the suggestion, we have referred the Table 5 in the text of the results section (Page 12, line 168). Responses to Reviewer #1 1. The paper requires some editing, as it is not written in sound English and should not be accepted in its current form. The author(s) may get the manuscript revised by either a native English speaker or someone who excels in the English language for this purpose. Response: Thanks for the comments. According to the suggestion, we have taken help from a colleague of the English Department of a Local University and a senior colleague experienced in scientific writing from our institute. With their use, we have revised the entire manuscript to avoid language and grammatical errors. 2. The introduction section is well-defined with adequate references. Response: Thank you, we appreciate the comments. 3. The materials and methods section is described in detail. However, the results section has not been interpreted properly. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we revised the results section and interpreted the results elaborately. 4. There are places, although not many, in the discussion section where relevant references should have been provided to strengthen the findings. Besides, a more comprehensive discussion on what needs to be done for an improved outcome could enhance the value of the work. Response: Thanks for the remark, and we agree with that. We included few additional references to strengthen the findings. Responses to Reviewer #2 Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. The authors address a relevant and topical issue, such as the impact working on the front line against covid has on health professionals. However, the manuscript can be improved. The international literature on burnout in health professionals is extensive, as is the literature referring specifically to burnout during the COVID pandemic. For this article to be publishable, the authors must still make an important effort to go deeper both in the background and in the discussion. To do this, they must substantially expand the international literature they handle and reference (in the current version, only 14 references, of which six are more than ten years old). The methodology and presentation of results are a longitudinal descriptive study, and the results are presented adequately. However, they could have been enriched by adding additional variables (perceived stress, workload, quality of life ... .), which would allow a greater depth in the discussion and conclusions. There are small errors about the sample size (in the method, there are 165 professionals, and in results, it is said that 168). For all of them, I believe that this manuscript does not meet the minimum requirements for publication in its current version. However, I think that the authors should continue to delve into this topic of such interest. Response: According to your suggestion, we made an effort to review related recent international literature on burnout in health professionals. After reviewing those articles, the background and discussion sections were revised and edited accordingly. Regarding your suggestion of adding some additional variables, we will keep it in our mind for our future work. The sample size was 168, corrected in the methods section (Page 5, line 94). There are minor errors about the sample size (in the method, it is said that there are 165 professionals, and in results, it is said that 168).Thanks for marking it. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r002
10 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-11241R1Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of COVID Hospitals During COVID-19 Pandemic, BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rashid, 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. The reviewer are not satisfied yet with the language and grammar of manuscript. Therefore, it is requested to carefully check the language of manuscript or take help from expert proofreader. If you have already did proofreading then you may need native speaker expert or professional proofreader. Please submit your revised manuscript by 24 April 2022. 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): It is recommended to improve the language of manuscript and go-to experts for proofreading and resubmit. [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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: The authors have made a great effort to answer the questions raised in the previous review and the manuscript has improved substantially. I recommend that authors cite or reference the article on the Bangladeshi version of the Maslach questionnaire (in addition to the original citation already included). I also recommend reviewing the English, especially in the introduction ****** 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 #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r003
Revision 2
18 Apr 2022 Author Response Dear Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE and dear reviewer Thank you very much. The manuscript has been revised as per your valuable suggestion. Hope this might fulfil your expectation. If you still need any clarification, feel free to communicate. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter t (1).doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r004
17 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-11241R2Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of COVID Hospitals During COVID-19 Pandemic, BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rashid, 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 August 1 2022. 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D 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 #2: (No Response) 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: I recommend that authors cite or reference the article on the Bangladeshi version of the Maslach questionnaire (in addition to the original citation already included). If they have used an adaptation / translation made ad-hoc for this study, it is something that should be specified, including at least reliability data (total Cronbach's alpha and by dimensions) Reviewer #3: Dear authors. I think this paper still needs major revision again. English language editing is preferred. My comments are as follows Abstract: - Methods: Add how you select your data randomly, convenience.. - Please removed this paragraph """scores for three domains....... and replace it with statistical analysis you used. Keywords: add doctors Introduction - Please set all references behind the full stop dot. - You mention burnout syndrome several times before you mention the abbreviation in line 57. Please make sure to be consistent with your words. - Add one paragraph related to your demographic factors. Methods - Again how you collect your data???. Add convenience sample procedure. - What is your exclusion and inclusion criteria of your participants? - Please add your response rate - In which language you used the study tool? - did you use Ch-square and t-test????add them on data analysis. results - replace sex to gender in all. - you repeated what is already in Table 1. Give us a holistic view about your sample. - Table, the letter t is capitalized when you mention Table. - I notice that both dimension of DP, PA no one falls in low level. This result is surprising. - I'm a quantified in this scale, EE is the main core of BOS, How can you explain that 58.3% of them had severe EE and 98.2% had severe BOS???? - Table 4. Please remove star over p-value... star over p-value mean significant not the test of what you used. - Add reference category when you writing your result. - Table 6, Add star on significant level. Discussion I suggest to remove all numbers of i.e., 58.3.. - add other psychological problem that doctors are suffered such as workplace violence. Read this paper "Workplace Violence among Healthcare Providers during the COVID-19 Health Emergency: A Cross-Sectional Study - You found that higher educational lever are more prone to BOS. Please add more explanation. This paper can help. Self-evaluation and professional status as predictors of burnout among nurses in Jordan - You mention in limitation section that is only from public hospitals?????????????? did you mention private - References double check and remove hyperlinks. Good luck Reviewer #4: (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 #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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reveiwer comment on BOS.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r005
Revision 3
29 Jul 2022 Author Response Response to reviewers attached as separate file Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r006
19 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-11241R3Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of Secondary and Tertiary Care Hospitals of Bangladesh During COVID-19 PandemicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rashid, 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 3, 2022. 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 #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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Dear authors, your paper is enhanced significantly. However, minor issues still need more clarification before accepting this paper. English language editing is recommended. Abstract - conclusion part has to be written again. It's not a repeat of what in your results. Give a broad image of burnout during such crises among doctors. The implications for medicine must also be addressed. Introduction - Again, please set all references before the full stop dot. - Add one paragraph related to your demographic factors. Methods - How did you collect your data by whom, and at what time, did they sign a consent form.... These issues need to be clarified. Post hoc test: Which one??? Please add. Tukey, Sheffie.... Results - In Table 5, why do you mention 2p-values.. Some of the p-values are significant without marks. - Again, please change the word (sex) to gender in the whole of your manuscript. The discussion part is improved significantly Please return to the style of PLOS ONE reference guidelines, Some papers you added DOI, some references you add a month of publication. Please double-check all references. Good luck. Reviewer #4: Comments for authors Dear editors, thank you give the chance to review this paper and my comment is the following. Reviewer Comments for a research entitled: Burnout Syndrome among Frontline Doctors of COVID Hospitals during COVID-19 Pandemic, Bangladesh 1. In the method section from line number 85 says the study was conducted from June to August 2020? Is it data collection period or the research is done with this time bound, if it is for data collection period I think it is so long 3 months for cross-sectional study data collection. 2. In the result section what was your criteria to categorize the age of your study participants line number 144(socio-demographic characteristics)? 3. In your data collection tool the first component is about socio –demographic and workplace details. Do you incorporate workplace factors for burn out syndrome like demand –control model (job control and job demand) model to see the effect of workload and workers capability to accomplished it. 4. Line number 175, High Burnout in All Three Domains and Demographic and Job-related and in it is regression table the category of <<type employment="" of="">> were not have AOR why it cannot candidate for multivariable regression model and it is unusual even the change of odds ratio should be seen from bi variable to multivariable model, so it is better to see again it. 5. In the discussion section after starting the discussion section with some statements that indicate the problem and next discussed the main finding of the your study therefore line number 198 -205 is part of you background or statement of the problem and it is better avoid it . The paper is very important to provide essential information regarding health care workers level of burn out syndrome during outbreak management to develop an intervention.</type> ****** 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 #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.0277875.r007
Revision 4
30 Sep 2022 Author Response Responses to Reviewer's Questions Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Dear authors, your paper is enhanced significantly. However, minor issues still need more clarification before accepting this paper. English language editing is recommended. Abstract - conclusion part has to be written again. It's not a repeat of what in your results. Give a broad image of burnout during such crises among doctors. The implications for medicine must also be addressed. Introduction - Again, please set all references before the full stop dot. - Add one paragraph related to your demographic factors. Methods - How did you collect your data by whom, and at what time, did they sign a consent form.... These issues need to be clarified. Post hoc test: Which one??? Please add. Tukey, Sheffie.... Results - In Table 5, why do you mention 2p-values.. Some of the p-values are significant without marks. - Again, please change the word (sex) to gender in the whole of your manuscript. The discussion part is improved significantly Please return to the style of PLOS ONE reference guidelines, Some papers you added DOI, some references you add a month of publication. Please double-check all references. Good luck. Response to Reviewer #3 Comment: -Tried my best to improve the editing of the English language. In abstract: -Conclusion part of abstract rewritten according to your suggestion. Implication for medicine addressed. Introduction: - All references are set before the full stop dot. - One paragraph is added related to my demographic factors. Methods: - How data was collected, by whom, at what time, and whether they signed a consent form. - These issues be clarified in the methods and material section under the heading-‘settings and participants'. -Type of Post hoc analysis is added to results and discussion(Tukey HSD-Mentioned in Line 185 & 188). Results: -In table 5, 2 p-values were mentioned---One is for univariate analysis and an unadjusted odds ratio, and the other for the multivariate analysis-adjusted odds ratio. The significant p-values are marked by the star a () mark. - The word 'sex' changed to gender in the whole manuscript. -Double-checked references according to PloS one guideline and did necessary modifications. Reviewer #4: Comments for authors 1. In the method section from line number 85 says the study was conducted from June to August 2020? Is it data collection period or the research is done with this time bound, if it is for data collection period I think it is so long 3 months for cross-sectional study data collection. Answer: Thank you very much. Because of frontline doctors' lockdown and quarantine policy, it wasn't easy to research the doctors for data collection. It took three months to collect and compile data from two institutes. 2. In the result section what was your criteria to categorize the age of your study participants line number 144(socio-demographic characteristics)? Answer: Categorization of the age of respondents into different groups based on their academic year(1st-3rd and 4th-5th year) is described in the result section. 3. In your data collection tool, the first component is about socio –demographic and workplace details. Do you incorporate workplace factors for burn out syndrome like demand –control model (job control and job demand) model to see the effect of workload and workers capability to accomplished it. Answer: In our data collection tool, in the first component, only socio-demographic profiles were included, and workplace details were not incorporated. So, in the current manuscript, erroneously mentioned words related to workplace details are discarded. 4. Line number 175, High Burnout in All Three Domains and Demographic and Job-related and in it is regression table the category of <> were not have AOR why it cannot candidate for multivariable regression model and it is unusual even the change of odds ratio should be seen from bi variable to multivariable model, so it is better to see again it. Answer: In table -5(High burnout in all three domains in demographic and demographic and Job-related characteristics) - only the variables with p<0.2 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis. The change of OR is rechecked according to your suggestion, and the results are the same. 5. In the discussion section after starting the discussion section with some statements that indicate the problem and next discussed the main finding of the your study therefore line number 198 -205 is part of you background or statement of the problem and it is better avoid it . Answer: Correction done as per your suggestion. The paper is very important to provide essential information regarding health care workers level of burn out syndrome during outbreak management to develop an intervention. Answer: Thank you. 1. Please ensure that you refer to Table 6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Answer: Table 6 referred to text according to your suggestion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r008
10 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-11241R4Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of Secondary and Tertiary Care Hospitals of Bangladesh During COVID-19 PandemicPLOS ONE Dear, 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 9th November 2022. 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 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 Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 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: Congratulations. All of my comments have been added. My best wishes to authors for their effort. Great work Reviewer #4: Dear editors , Thank you giving this opportunity to review this research paper the author address almost my questions but have the following point if the author can consider it. 1. In the result section what was your criteria to categorize the age of your study participants line number 144(socio-demographic characteristics in the previous question respond rather the author respond about academic position classification of the study participants and he/she can reflect again. 2. In the previous review the authors reflects this Answer: In table -5(High burnout in all three domains in demographic and demographic and Job-related characteristics) - only the variables with p<0.2 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis, and in this regard the author is correctly respond and it is acceptable. But still in line number 176 and 177(regression table needs re write correctly such as Factors associated with high burnout in all three Domains… and in this table there are variables such as “Types of employment”, <<patient out="" turn="">>, that are present in bi-variable analysis but cannot present or cannot appear( eliminated) in multivariable regression model, meaning that have no report of adjusted odds ratio(AOR) either it is significant or insignificant value and when this appear recoding of this variable may be needed, the other point in this table is that writing p- value for COR is not needed( it is better avoid it).</patient> ****** 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: 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.0277875.r009
Revision 5
1 Nov 2022 Author Response Journal Requirements: 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. Answer: Reviewed reference list. There are no retracted references at present.No change has been made in the reference list apart from the style of reference writing. 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) ________________________________________ 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 Reviewer #4: Yes ________________________________________ 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No Answer: According to your prior suggestion, the manuscript was checked and improvised by a native English-speaking person(as I mentioned earlier). And any typographical or grammatical errors corrected, reformed as much as possible. ________________________________________ 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: Congratulations. All of my comments have been added. My best wishes to authors for their effort. Great work Reviewer #4: Dear editors , Thank you giving this opportunity to review this research paper the author address almost my questions but have the following point if the author can consider it. 1. In the result section what was your criteria to categorize the age of your study participants line number 144(socio-demographic characteristics in the previous question respond rather the author respond about academic position classification of the study participants and he/she can reflect again. Answer: Thank you. Here in our country, a physician graduated at least at the age of 24( including the intern period), so the lower limit of age taken as 25, and all resident/frontline doctors in government tertiary care hospitals are younger because of a need of in-service training for completion of postgraduation and most of them are usually around 35 years. That is why age was categorized as such. Also, the case records form was structured based on the previous study on burnout among resident doctors(Reference: Alhaffar, B.A., Abbas, G. & Alhaffar, A.A. The prevalence of burnout syndrome among resident physicians in Syria. J Occup Med Toxicol 14, 31 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-019-0250-0). And after analysis, the younger age group was found to have a 6.45 times higher chance of burnout than the older age group. 2. In the previous review the authors reflects this Answer: In table -5(High burnout in all three domains in demographic and demographic and Job-related characteristics) - only the variables with p<0.2 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis, and in this regard the author is correctly respond and it is acceptable. But still in line number 176 and 177(regression table needs re write correctly such as Factors associated with high burnout in all three Domains… and in this table there are variables such as "Types of employment", <>, that are present in bi-variable analysis but cannot present or cannot appear( eliminated) in multivariable regression model, meaning that have no report of adjusted odds ratio(AOR) either it is significant or insignificant value and when this appear recoding of this variable may be needed, the other point in this table is that writing p- value for COR is not needed( it is better avoid it). Answer: The Type of employment's P-value was not statistically significant in univariate analysis. That is why multivariate analysis did not calculate the P value for those non-significant variables. However, I remodeled the table according to your suggestions. Please check. ________________________________________ 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: No Reviewer #4: No Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.DOCX https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r010
6 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of Secondary and Tertiary Care Hospitals of Bangladesh During COVID-19 Pandemic PONE-D-21-11241R5 Dear, 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r011
Formally Accepted
10 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-11241R5 Burnout Syndrome Among Frontline Doctors of Secondary and Tertiary Care Hospitals of Bangladesh During COVID-19 Pandemic Dear Dr. Rashid: 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. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277875.r012

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 .