Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 15, 2022
Decision Letter - Soham Bandyopadhyay, Editor

PONE-D-22-31149Changes in Japanese physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry between 2008 and 2021: a national surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mukohara,

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 12/03/2023. 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,

Soham Bandyopadhyay

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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.

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.

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: I Don't Know

**********

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: 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

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: i think its important think about the Pharmaceutical sales. Pharmaceutical representatives doing a good job to promote their companies product. How they can convince the doctor to increase the sale of their product is important. I am excited that the japanese specialty doctors are not influenced by the promotions given by the PRs. However, the study does not seem novel.

Reviewer #2: The article discusses the involvement of physician in pharmaceutical promotional activities and attempts to track the changes from a previous 2008 study. They used a survey tool that partly resembles their previous tool which makes it hard to track this change. Also the survey tool was not part of the publication, not knowing the language of the question makes it hard to understand the responses provided. There was no logical explanation on why different specialties was a determining factor for significance. In addition, unlike the research done on sillier topics in the US, there is no legislation or decision from professional organizations or medical schools that deters physician from interacting/accepting gifts and promotional material from pharmaceutical representative, so the variable studied between 2008 and now is, and based on the study findings, not a determining factor to change attitudes/behaviors.

**********

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

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.

Revision 1

Reviewer #1: I think its important think about the pharmaceutical sales. Pharmaceutical representatives doing a good job to promote their companies product. How they can convince the doctor to increase the sale of their product is important. I am excited that the Japanese specialty doctors are not influenced by the promotions given by the PRs. However, the study does not seem novel.

Response: Thank you for your review. As you noted, there have been numerous studies conducted on this topic in the past. However, this particular study is significant as it sheds light on the fact that the perception of Japanese physicians has not changed over time, despite long-standing concerns. We believe that this finding is a valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge on physician-pharmaceutical industry relationships.

Reviewer #2: The article discusses the involvement of physician in pharmaceutical promotional activities and attempts to track the changes from a previous 2008 study. They used a survey tool that partly resembles their previous tool which makes it hard to track this change. Also the survey tool was not part of the publication, not knowing the language of the question makes it hard to understand the responses provided.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a survey form in which the questions are in English as a supplementary file.

Reviewer #2: There was no logical explanation on why different specialties was a determining factor for significance.

Response: Since previous studies have indicated that physicians who prescribe more also receive more gifts, we compared the differences by specialty and expected that internists, who are known to prescribe more, would be more involved in pharmaceutical promotional activities than other specialists. We have added an explanation of this point on page 7, line 19 to page 8, line 3 of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In addition, unlike the research done on similar topics in the US, there is no legislation or decision from professional organizations or medical schools that deters physician from interacting/accepting gifts and promotional material from pharmaceutical representative, so the variable studied between 2008 and now is, and based on the study findings, not a determining factor to change attitudes/behaviors.

Response: We agree that the variable studied between 2008 and now is not a determining factor to change attitudes or behaviors, as per the study findings. We have added an explanation of this point on page 25 lines 3 to 7 of the manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Soham Bandyopadhyay, Editor

Changes in Japanese physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry between 2008 and 2021: a national survey

PONE-D-22-31149R1

Dear Dr. Mukhora,

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,

Soham Bandyopadhyay

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Soham Bandyopadhyay, Editor

PONE-D-22-31149R1

Changes in Japanese physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry between 2008 and 2021: a national survey

Dear Dr. Mukohara:

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. Soham Bandyopadhyay

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .