PONE-D-22-15456Shifting elder care practices in Chinese middle-class familiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.  Please also note that the reviewer requires a major rework of almost all sections of the manuscript. This includes the discussion where the findings should be outlined in relation to existing literature. The reviewer also requires the inclusion of discussions of the limitations of the study, such as the study population, a single city, interview conditions, and bias in educational levels, and the inclusion of future implications and recommendations for research and practice. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 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,

Alice Coles-Aldridge

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). 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.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

3. 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.

[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: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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 topic of (changes in) traditional values like intergenerational family support (and more particular filial piety from the younger to the older generation) is very interesting and highly relevant in ageing societies like China but also elsewhere. The authors focus on middle class multigenerational families and found an challenging qualitative design to interview three generations in ten families. However, there are major concerns with the structure, wording and content of almost al parts of the paper:

- the Abstract should be re-written conform the requitements of the journal, including more precise information about methods, limitations and one or two implications/recommendations.

- the Introduction is very lengthy, too wordy and often hard to follow. Restrict yourselves to problem analysis, (knowledge gaps in) the most relevant literature, relevance and focus of your research question.

- Please rewrite your Methods in a more strict style, not in the present conversational way of story telling. The arguments behind your selection criteria are not substantiated and do not always seem to be selection criteria but more descriptive variables about your research population (also pleas translate Hukou). Your informal way of recruiting from personal networks has lead to a upward bias in the eductional level of your respondents, on top of your selection criterion of "middle class". I miss this as part of a paragraph about limitations in your Discussion. On page 8 you mention that "several" respondents refused audiorecording of the interviews. How many (in percentages) and how then could you make a transcription of this interview? How was all coding and data analyses (last paragraph at the end of page 8) performed, only by the first author or by more authors, how did you deal with unclearness or disconsensus about coding and intepretation of data? This is an important part of your Methods section, also to judge whether other researchers would have achieved the same results when they would follow your methods (validity!). In table 2, the relevance of the column community remains unclear and does not seem to play a role in the Findings/Results. Please provide a table or Appendix about the topic list you used to guide the interviews. How long did the interviews take, was it always one-to-one with each respondent or were other people present or did you even have small group interviews with several G-respondents at the same time? In short, describe in more precise details all steps you have undertaking in crafting your methodology. That is important to judge the quality and validity of your methods (would other researchers find the same results if the follow your methods?).

- In the present state of your paper, the Findings/Results are the better part, with an interesting typology in three types of families. However, this section will become stronger if you really concentrate on findings only, in more condensed wording and without any embedding in literature of reflective discussions, as that belongs to the following section Discussion. Tables about particular families partly overlap with table 1, and within these tables the columns Resources (do you mean Respondents?) and Occupation also overlap. Perhaps it is a suggestion to put these tables in an Appendix?

- Your Discussion needs rework. PLeas start with the main findings, reflect on the in relation to existing literature also please also include paragraphs about Limitations (about study population, in only one city, interview conditions, bias in educational levels) and Implications/Recommendations (for research and practice). I doubt the position of the last parts of "discourse of the young" and "risk and uncertainty in the new China". The first parts was not presented as a Result before, both parts could be better integrated in the Discussion (or subsection Implications), in stead of being presented as a kind of add-ons at the final end.

- The whole paper requires thorough editing by a native English corrector

**********

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: Robbert Huijsman

**********

[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.

PONE-D-22-15456R1Shifting elder care practices in Chinese middle-class familiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 see the comments from one previous reviewer and one new reviewer below. Please consider carefully all comments made by the reviewers. One reviewer notes that some sections can be shortened - please consider this, although note that PLOS ONE does not have word limits, and as such, you may choose how you approach this.  Please also confirm when you resubmit that all surnames are mock names, and that all information has been thoroughly anonymised, and that there is no possibility of reidentification of data.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 13 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,

Hanna Landenmark

Staff 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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Some final check on grammar, wording, editing is still necessary (example: "eldercare" versus "elder care" (with or without space), but better seems "elderly care" and more preferably an other term like "care for older persons"; page 4: no spcae between -2 and parents); no first names in author referencing; et al. yes or not in cursive)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of Shifting elder care practices in Chinese middle-class families. I report my review by section below.

1. Abstract

- The abstract could be written more in-line with a typical research abstract (background, purpose/aims, methods, results, discussion/conclusion). As written, it is unclear the underlying methods/rigor of this study or how the points the authors refer to were identified.

- There remains grammatical errors in the abstract.

2. Introduction

- Second paragraph, second sentence. I’m not sure this sentence is asking a question.

- While interesting, the introduction can be shortened considerably. At present, it is more than 1600 words in length. In contrast, the typical medical journal manuscript is typically 3000-3500 words total.

3. Methods

- Consider shortening. This reads much more like a dissertation rather than a journal article.

- Consider using headings (e.g., sampling strategy, data analysis)

- Consider reporting methods in line with qualitative reporting guidelines (e.g., COREQ)

- The authors could consider removing several unnecessary details in the methods (i.e. gifts, small favors etc.)

- Discussion of methodological issues of the study (e.g., the discussion of why respondents preferred to not be recorded) belong in the discussion section, not methods.

- Paragraph under the image 1 belongs in discussion other than the description of IRB approval.

- More details regarding the qualitative methods are needed. How many people coded? Were transcripts professionally transcribed? What analytic method did the authors use? How did the authors code and develop themes? Did they reach data saturation? How was the interview guide developed? Refined? How were codes developed and refined? Please follow qualitative reporting guidelines as suggested above.

- Typically names of families, patients, etc. are not included in manuscripts due to concerns for HIPAA and the need to de-identify respondents. Consider changing names to abbreviations (e.g., the “H Family” or “family # 1”). Given financial information is also described in this paper (Table 4 resources of the Han family) I would strongly urge the authors to anonymize respondents.

4. Findings

- In this section only report the findings from the study. Any discussion/expansion of the findings should be included in the discussion section.

5. Discussion

- Lacking a limitations paragraph

**********

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 #1: Yes: Robbert Huijsman

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.

Shifting elder care practices in Chinese middle-class families

PONE-D-22-15456R2

Dear Dr. Wang,

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,

Robbert Huijsman, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors, PlosOne has invited me to act as Guest Academic Editor. I hereby disclose that I was reviewer #1 in the first and second round. You followed up on many of my comments in the first round, and I expressed to be happy with that in the second round. But as I was the only reviewer in the first round, it is great that PlosOne found a second reviewer in the second round. This person had some very important comments and made perfect suggestions to strengthen your paper. And gladly you did so, especially in Abstract, English language, shortening the Introduction, revising and shortening the sections for Methods and Discussion. The qualitative methods are more concise and clear now, according to the requirements of PlosOne. You assured the reviewers that you did not use actual but fictional and randomly assigned names for the families and respondents. Elements of the earlier versions are now better placed in the Discussion, as was a serious comment in both the first and second review round. Yor study is based on original research, with interesting findings about changing intergenerational attitudes and beliefs about elder-care and family care in middle class families and your analyses are followed-up by a good discussion and conclusion, with added value to the literature. Therefore, I come to the conclusion to accept the present revised version.

Reviewers' comments: