Inferring incompetence from employment status: An audit-like experiment

Celestin Okoroji; Ilka H. Gleibs; Simon Howard

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280596

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 20, 2022
24 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Sónia Brito-Costa, Editor PONE-D-22-14505Inferring Incompetence from Employment Status: An Audit-like Experiment PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gleibs, 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. Dear Ilka Gleibs About your paper entitled “Inferring Incompetence from Employment Status: An Audit-like Experiment” We have considered that the paper is interesting and could potentially be published in a new versión (the decisión is Minor Revision) that takes into account the observations made by the referees. I am attaching the referee's comments, which will help to explain the reasons for our decision. As you can see, the reviewer finds the paper to be of interest, but raises a number of significant concerns. I hope the reports may be useful if you are considering revising the paper for re-submission to Plos One. Yours sincerely, Sonia Brito-Costa Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 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, Sónia Brito-Costa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Peer review at PLOS ONE is not double-blinded (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process). For this reason, authors should include in the revised manuscript all the information removed for blind review. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5, Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: I really enjoyed reading this paper. It addresses a timely topic that deserves publication in PLoS ONE, given the methodological rigor based on data availability with R-based codes in a public OSF repository. I only have two concerns regarding the manuscript as it is. First, despite the importance of the topic, the paper omits more recent evidence that should be included in the literature review. In this sense, it is a plus to quote the following studies: - Garcia-Lorenzo, L., Sell-Trujillo, L., & Donnelly, P. (2021). Responding to stigmatization: How to resist and overcome the stigma of unemployment. Organization Studies, 01708406211053217. - Suttill, B. (2021). Non-academic, lazy and not employable: Exploring stereotypes of NEETs in England. Employment and Careers. The second concern relates to the communication strategy followed in the article. For example, although Table 1 and 3 summarize descriptive statistics of each study, they omit third and fourth statistical moments (asymmetry and kurtosis) that might be informative for a general audience if communicated with ridgeplots. Given the fact that authors analyzed their data with R-codes, it would be nice to see statistical differences visually. ******** 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: Juan C. Correa (ORCID:0000-0002-0301-5641) ******** [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.0280596.r001
Revision 1
21 Nov 2022 Author Response Dear Dr Brito-Costa, Thank you very much for your positive response in the first round of revision. We were very encouraged by your decision letter and the reviewer’s comments. We explain below how we dealt with the individual points mentioned. 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 We have now updated the document and use the PLOS One style template throughout. 2. Peer review at PLOS ONE is not double-blinded (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process). For this reason, authors should include in the revised manuscript all the information removed for blind review. We have now included the title page with all authors identified and unblinded the references. 3. 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. We used an online survey where people read the informed consent before they had to agree/disagree with the survey before they could continue. We have also included information that the LSE ethics committee approved the study. 4. 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. We will be able to provide a DOI number for the data, which is Identifier: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/RF7HW We will be able to update the Data Availability statement with this. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Garcia-Lorenzo, L., Sell-Trujillo, L., & Donnelly, P. (2021). Responding to stigmatization: How to resist and overcome the stigma of unemployment. Organization Studies, 01708406211053217. - Suttill, B. (2021). Non-academic, lazy and not employable: Exploring stereotypes of NEETs in England. Employment and Careers. Thank you very much, we have included these in the manuscript; we are not citing any work that was retracted. 6. The second concern relates to the communication strategy followed in the article. For example, although Table 1 and 3 summarize descriptive statistics of each study, they omit third and fourth statistical moments (asymmetry and kurtosis) that might be informative for a general audience if communicated with ridgeplots. Given the fact that authors analyzed their data with R-codes, it would be nice to see statistical differences visually. Thank you also for this comment; we have now included the information on symmetry and kurtosis in the descriptive tables. We have not included a ridgeplot as we felt is was not necessary to include more Figures. In sum, given our revision, we hope that you find the revised manuscript to be of wide interest and suitable for publication in PLoS One and we look forward to your editorial response. Sincerely, Dr Ilka Gleibs as corresponding author on behalf of all authors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS One Revisions_R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280596.r002
4 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Sónia Brito-Costa, Editor Inferring Incompetence from Employment Status: An Audit-like Experiment PONE-D-22-14505R1 Dear Dr. Ilka H. Gleibs, 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, Sónia Brito-Costa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280596.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sónia Brito-Costa, Editor PONE-D-22-14505R1 Inferring Incompetence from Employment Status: An Audit-like Experiment Dear Dr. Gleibs: 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. Sónia Brito-Costa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280596.r004

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 .