Basics of faculty-to-faculty mentoring: A process to identify support and challenges

Tabassum Zehra; Muhammed Tariq; Rehana Rehman; Rukhsana W. Zuberi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287127

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 22, 2022
19 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor PONE-D-22-31892Basics of Faculty-to-Faculty Mentoring: A Reporting Research Process to Identify Support and ChallengesDear Dr. Zehra, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by February 2, 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, Mukhtiar Baig, 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. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed. 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. 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript concept is good, but it needs significant revision. [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: No Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: 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 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: No 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: This study’s objectives are unclear and not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript and thus cannot be correlated with the title. It is unclear whether the objective is to report the process of the workshop or to share the perception of the involved participants about the mentoring program. The introduction needs major revision as it is not written in a systematic way e.g. there are two places in the first paragraph where there is a mention of a “dearth of literature” but the writing in between these two mentions has no link with them. It should be written in a crisp and organized way. It is unclear from the manuscript that the intervention is done before the launch of the formal mentoring program in 2019. Not mentioning the timelines gave a sense of confusion in understanding the findings e.g. were the recognized challenges were difficulties that the faculty encountered or potential that they recognized before participating in the program? The methodology section does not adequately describe the procedure. Even providing an example of a single scenario employed will allow readers to comprehend the process. The duration and timeline of the research process (workshop) should be mentioned when reporting it. It is important to explain how the scenario led to the conclusions and the method utilized to analyze the information from the workshop discussion. In the result section, the key to the asterisk () is not mentioned in table 1. In terms of its overall structure and case presentation, the manuscript needs significant reworking. It will help other institutions in developing and operating a successful faculty mentoring program if it is improved and presented in a better way. Reviewer #2: Abstract, introduction, methodology, discussion and conclusion sections are written according to the journal's requirement. Research topic is interesting, and is relevant to medical educators. However, following areas need further elaboration: 1. Research question should be more focused and clear. 2. In the rationale, it is mentioned, "The first workshop was conducted to identify the 1) needs of AKU MC faculty mentors, mentee & institution, ii) explore faculty perspectives on responsibilities & expectations of faculty mentor, faculty mentee, and the institution iii) challenges faced with respect to faculty mentoring iv) scope of mentor-mentee relationship." There are many stakeholders, and needs-assessment cannot be identified with one workshop and with the inclusion of only one stakeholder, the faculty mentors. Other stakeholders, e.g., junior faculty members and institutional leadership should be approached as well to strengthen the findings. 4. If feasible, in-depth qualitative part can be included in methodology to give better interpretations. 5. It is mentioned in the study that formal faculty mentorship program was initiated by the institution, and there is no standard faculty mentorship model to be followed. This point should be elaborated further, as, mostly, when an institution starts a formal mentorship program, it mentions mentorship model in detail with standard operating procedures (SOP). 5. Minor corrections are needed, e.g., full stop (.) is missing in line no. 4 of Abstract after "creating a risk of unexpected outcome", and no. of participants is twenty-two, while, in results section twenty is mentioned. 6. Most of the findings of the research is already present in literature. Authors should highlight additional findings in the local context. ******* 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: Yes: Muhammad Imran ******** [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.0287127.r001
Revision 1
7 Feb 2023 Author Response First Reviewer’s comment This study’s objectives are unclear and not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript and thus cannot be correlated with the title. It is unclear whether the objective is to report the process of the workshop or to share the perception of the involved participants about the mentoring program. Added The introduction needs major revision as it is not written in a systematic way e.g. there are two places in the first paragraph where there is a mention of a “dearth of literature” but the writing in between these two mentions has no link with them. It should be written in a crisp and organized way. Revised as suggested It is unclear from the manuscript that the intervention is done before the launch of the formal mentoring program in 2019. Not mentioning the timelines gave a sense of confusion in understanding the findings e.g. were the recognized challenges were difficulties that the faculty encountered or potential that they recognized before participating in the program? Revised as suggested The methodology section does not adequately describe the procedure. Even providing an example of a single scenario employed will allow readers to comprehend the process. The duration and timeline of the research process (workshop) should be mentioned when reporting it. It is important to explain how the scenario led to the conclusions and the method utilized to analyze the information from the workshop discussion. Scenarios added. Revision made In the result section, the key to the asterisk () is not mentioned in table 1. Removed Second Reviewer’s comments Research question should be more focused and clear. Added There are many stakeholders, and needs-assessment cannot be identified with one workshop and with the inclusion of only one stakeholder, the faculty mentors. Other stakeholders, e.g., junior faculty members and institutional leadership should be approached as well to strengthen the findings. Added in the limitations and way forward If feasible, in-depth qualitative part can be included in methodology to give better interpretations. Added in way forward It is mentioned in the study that formal faculty mentorship program was initiated by the institution, and there is no standard faculty mentorship model to be followed. This point should be elaborated further, as, mostly, when an institution starts a formal mentorship program, it mentions mentorship model in detail with standard operating procedures (SOP). Identified the need for the model and revised Minor corrections are needed, e.g., full stop (.) is missing in line no. 4 of Abstract after "creating a risk of unexpected outcome", and no. of participants is twenty-two, while, in results section twenty is mentioned. Done Most of the findings of the research is already present in literature. Authors should highlight additional findings in the local context. Done Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287127.r002
2 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor PONE-D-22-31892R1Basics of Faculty-to-Faculty Mentoring: A Reporting Research to IdentifySupport and ChallengesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zehra, 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 Apr 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, Mukhtiar Baig, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: As the research question indicates that the purpose of the study is to report participants' perceptions, the methodology section should now be more detailed in terms of data collection and analysis. How the results are compiled and what was the methods used to reach to the reported results. Please also clearly state the objective no. 1 of your workshop mentioned in the last paragraph of your introduction section Reviewer #2: Authors have answered all the comments. Abstract is unstructured and all important details are given. Introduction is comprehensive and objective is clearly mentioned. Methods, results and discussion sections are written promptly, and all necessary changes have been taken care of adequately. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Imran ******** [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.0287127.r003
Revision 2
15 Apr 2023 Author Response 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. Answer: This has been taken care of. Font and spacing with language corrections were done 2. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed Answer: Further details provided Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the editor 28-03-2023.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287127.r004
31 May 2023 Decision Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor Basics of Faculty-to-Faculty Mentoring: A Reporting Research to IdentifySupport and Challenges PONE-D-22-31892R2 Dear Dr. Zehra, 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, Mukhtiar Baig, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287127.r005
Formally Accepted
5 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor PONE-D-22-31892R2 Basics of Faculty-to-Faculty Mentoring: A Process to Identify Support and Challenges. Dear Dr. Zehra: 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 Professor Mukhtiar Baig Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287127.r006

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 .