Barriers to conducting independent quantitative research in low-income countries: A cross-sectional study of public health graduate students in Liberia

Hajah Kenneh; Tamba Fayiah; Bernice Dahn; Laura A. Skrip

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280917

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 30, 2022
2 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Mohan Kumar, Editor PONE-D-22-27103Barriers to conducting independent quantitative research in low-income countries: a cross-sectional study of public health graduate students in LiberiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kenneh H, 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 Jan 16 2023 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, Mohan Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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. Additional Editor Comments: A very relevant and well written manuscript. I would ask the authors to work on reviewer comments and re-submit the manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have submitted a well-written manuscript including ethical aspects. Methods, results, discussion, and conclusion are detailed and concise. The manuscript is acceptable in the current form for publication. Reviewer #2: This study is potentially interesting, but its relatively simple design (cross sectional) and small sample limit the interest of the study. I think that a qualitative study (focus group or interview) would have provided more interesting information than a quantitative study. Some comments: abstract: It is necessary to add in this results section some aOR with their 95% CI, even if they are not significant. Introduction: This introduction section should be more developed so that the reader understands the context, the issue and the interest of this study. In addition, the objective of the study should be clearly defined at the end of this section. Methods: how did you choose the questions for the questionnaire? did you take them from other existing studies? or did you develop them specifically for this study? they were tested on a small group of students before being sent to the participants? more information should be given to the reader for the replication of the study tables: in table 5 if you have the 95% CI you don't need the p value ****** 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: Denny John 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.0280917.r001
Revision 1
29 Dec 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. The authors have submitted a well-written manuscript including ethical aspects. Methods, results, discussion, and conclusion are detailed and concise. The manuscript is acceptable in the current form for publication. Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. We are eager to share the work and indeed hope that the results guide stakeholders interested in building research capacity in Liberia and other similar contexts. Reviewer #2: 1. This study is potentially interesting, but its relatively simple design (cross sectional) and small sample limit the interest of the study. I think that a qualitative study (focus group or interview) would have provided more interesting information than a quantitative study. Thank you for this comment. We expect that our findings will form the basis of ongoing research into barriers so that research capacity-building efforts are more informed. Larger studies with mixed method designs would indeed strengthen the evidence provided in our baseline investigation. We have commented on the need for further research and the value of qualitative data to provide more nuanced findings in the Limitations section of the Discussion. 2. Abstract: It is necessary to add in this results section some aOR with their 95% CI, even if they are not significant. We appreciate the suggestion and have updated the last sentence of the Results section in the Abstract to include the relevant aOR and 95% CI. The sentence now states: “Computer ownership was found to be statistically significantly associated with higher likelihood of conducting quantitative research in the multivariable analysis (aOR: 4.90, 95% CI: 1.54 - 16.3).” 3. Introduction: This introduction section should be more developed so that the reader understands the context, the issue and the interest of this study. The feedback on the Introduction section is appreciated. We have added a paragraph to provide more information about the research context in Liberia, and the interest of the study to provide understanding about the context for those interested in building research capacity, and/or designing investments to do so, in Liberia. Wehave likewise updated the final paragraph to explain our objective more explicitly. 4. Introduction: In addition, the objective of the study should be clearly defined at the end of this section. We have added more clarity on the objective of the study at the end of the Introduction Section, which now includes the following statement: “The study aims to provide evidence around resource needs to enable tertiary- and graduate-level capacity for quantitative sciences in settings like Liberia with limited national resources for education and technology.” 5. Methods: How did you choose the questions for the questionnaire? did you take them from other existing studies? or did you develop them specifically for this study? Thank you for the comment. The selection of the questions for the questionnaire was two-fold. Approximately 20% of the questions in the questionnaire were adapted and revised from an existing study (Peter AM, 2017) while 80% were developed by the researchers. Within the Data Collection Tool section of the Methods, we have added this sentence: “The majority of questions on the tool was based on the researchers’ experience teaching and learning in Libera; approximately 5-10 questions (20%) on the tool were adapted from a survey previously used [21].” 6. Methods: They were tested on a small group of students before being sent to the participants? More information should be given to the reader for the replication of the study The questionnaire was pretested on a small group of students from the Medical School and R Beginner students at Quantitative Data for Decision-Making Lab (Q4D-Lab). The pretest was intended to demonstrate participants' understanding of the questionnaire and to provide a measure of the time required for completion. The text included the number of persons completing the pretest and the action taken based on our observations during the process. However, to provide further detail, we have now added the following: “We documented on average how long it took the students to complete the tool and whether responses were consistent with expectation,” in the Data Collection Tool section of the Methods. 7. Tables: in table 5 if you have the 95% CI you don't need the p value The point is well taken. P-values have been removed from the Table. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280917.r002
12 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Mohan Kumar, Editor Barriers to conducting independent quantitative research in low-income countries: a cross-sectional study of public health graduate students in Liberia PONE-D-22-27103R1 Dear Dr. Kenneh H, 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, Mohan Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280917.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Mohan Kumar, Editor PONE-D-22-27103R1 Barriers to conducting independent quantitative research in low-income countries: a cross-sectional study of public health graduate students in Liberia Dear Dr. Kenneh: 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. Mohan Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280917.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 .