PONE-D-22-15619The changing meaning of home in the work of South African women academics during the pandemic-enforced lockdownPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walters,

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.Specifically, please provide more details on the data collection strategies and specify if the data is available. In addition, please discuss other confounding factors that may affect female researchers' work performance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

3. 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

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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: Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your research.

The research article investigates how the meaning of home and working from home changed during COVID-times for women academics. The dataset includes close to 2000 observations derived from online surveys. The authors find that home remains an unequal place for women's work, and working from home during the pandemic had dire consequences for academic careers.

Comments:

I think the authors should emphasise the problem that the concept of "home" has changed for women academics. They mention that the meaning of home has changed from being a place of refuge to a place congested, competitive and constrained. However, they do not sufficiently highlight the implications of women not having a refuge or the complications and threats women academics face for not matching their male counterparts' performance.

I am also wondering about the relevance of the research for the future. What do these results imply for women academics in the future, and how can policies be implemented to support women academics who have to perform and prove themselves?

Specific comments:

Data: the authors should add descriptive statistics related to the sample demographics. They mention that the sample includes different levels of academia, but they do not provide frequencies (thus, how many from the sample were from which level). They also do not indicate the age, race, household size or institution distributions. Therefore they keep the reader wondering who the respondents were and if the sample is representative of female South African academics. There is most likely a selection bias in that female academics that were active and managed to adapt to the "new normal" did not take part in the survey as they did not have the time. The authors should acknowledge data limitations.

Furthermore, it seems that the data is not available to the readers. Thus, the reader cannot answer questions by exploring the data. I believe adding demographic variables can result in a more in-depth analysis. From an "intervention" point of view, this is especially important to determine which female academics suffered the most.

Interestingly, in the narrative, I see no mention of the academia missing the interaction and conversation with their peers. Academics travel to conferences and workshops, share their research and ideas, and collaborate on various research projects. I believe that not having these interactions also negatively affected female researchers' mental states and productive capabilities.

**********

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.

The changing meaning of home in the work of South African women academics during the pandemic-enforced lockdown

PONE-D-22-15619R1

Dear Dr. Cyrill Walters,

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,

Miwako Hosoda

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments :

This paper reveals how the meaning of home has been transformed in the face of forced " working from home" in a corona pandemic situation, with a particular focus on female researchers. An online survey of more than 2,000 female researchers is conducted. An online survey of more than 2,000 women researchers was conducted. And it was empirically shown that the meaning of home has changed from being a refuge from the outside world to a gendered space that is crowded, competitive, and constrained. The home is a terribly unequal place for working women, with disastrous consequences for their academic careers. To change this situation, the paper suggests that a deeper understanding of the social meaning of home and the implications of the "new normal" of telecommuting is needed. This is an issue that is shared not only by South African women researchers but also by women researchers around the world, and I think it is very significant to continue researching the theme of this paper.

This paper seems to have improved on the problems with the reviewers' input to date. Therefore, since it is also important to publish at the appropriate time, I would like to approve it as Accepted.