PONE-D-22-31384Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Willis,

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 Mar 24 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,

Suhad Daher-Nashif, MSc., PhD

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Willis,

We've now received the reviewers' comments and recommendations.  

Kindly address each comment in a table, revise your manuscript accordingly with highlighting the changes in red, and re-submit a modified version.

Warmest regards,

Dr Suhad Daher-Nashif

[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

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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article on the current perceptions of biomedical researchers on peer review. However, whilst it is an interesting read and provides an overview of current perceptions on this topic, in my opinion, there are a number of issues with the article that need addressing, particularly with the discussion. The article feels mismatched in the aims and discussion – with the aim stated as describing an updated perspective on current perceptions of biomedical researchers on peer review; and the discussion reading more as an opinion piece focussing mainly on triangulating findings from this study with a different pre-print review by the same authors as well as recommendations for professionalising peer review. I am not disagreeing with what is being said but it feels that the current findings are being somewhat overstated and I would welcome more interpretation of the survey findings themselves. I have some specific comments for consideration that I believe could improve the manuscript:

Abstract.

Sentence - Most respondents (n = 108, 62.8%) were independent researchers of an academic organization (n = 103, 62.8%) with greater than 21 peer-reviewed articles published (n = 106, 61.6%). This sentence is confusing and it is not clear what the numbers are referring to.

Introduction

Although it is clear why one discipline is being explored, it would be helpful to understand why the field of biomedical research was chosen as this is not explicitly described in the introduction.

Methods.

It would be helpful to know how many potential journals were in the original list, and how many were replaced. Could this be added as a flow chart? Also, it would be helpful to understand why inclusion criteria (e.g. being open access or having access) were not applied to the journal list before randomisation happened (presumably this is due the to the number of journals that there were).

The discussion highlights that the findings from this study match closely to the findings from a pre-print review. Can the authors provided further details on how the survey was developed, including on whether the responses to the questionnaire were informed by the findings of this review

Can authors also reflect on how they mitigated against any potential biases in developing responses to the closed questions or coding of data in the open questions.

Results

Again, this sentence is not clear - The majority (n = 108, 62.8%) were independent researchers defined as assistant, associate or full professors of an academic organization (n = 103, 62.8%) with greater than 21 peer-reviewed articles published (n = 106, 61.6%).

Sentence - For the 27 participants that had received peer review training, … Should this be 26?

Table 2 does not show all of the responses described in the section ‘experience with peer review and peer review training’. It should be made clear that all data can be found in supplemental material and that Table 2 does not present all data.

Figure 2 is very confusing. Some description on how to read this graph would be beneficial.

Sentence Eight (10.0%) indicated that it was required and provided by the journal internally, while two (2.5%) indicated that it was required by externally delivered. Typo on but not by?

The ‘qualitative section’ does not adequately present the open question data. None of themes to arise from the open question are described. A paragraph/summary of the themes would be beneficial, especially if the authors want to only present the top 3 themes by frequency in the table, although I would recommend expanding table 3 to include all of the themes. This table also needs a heading.

The table of themes and frequencies needs further detail explaining that the numbers refer to the frequencies overall and for specific themes.

Discussion

Much of the discussion is given over to mapping a potential path to professionalising peer review. Whilst I agree in principle with much of what is said, it feels out of place here and the findings from the current study being overstated. In particular, the recommendations from paragraph 6 (starting Third…) do not seem to be based on the findings at all.

Furthermore, potential biases and increases in online participation from the pandemic have not been addressed. For example, it is suggested that online training is highly desired. However, the questionnaire responses did not provide the same options for online and face to face and so it might be that lectures and courses are preferred over workshops regardless of whether they are online or face to face.

In addition, the authors cite that a large barrier to receiving training was the limited availability and accessibility of training material. In the context of the other data this reads that there are limited training courses, however, the data show that over 50% of responses were due to the researcher not having the time to engage in these courses. This could perhaps be broken down and expanded on

It is not clear why Appendix 1 is provided. I would recommend this is removed.

Also Supplementary material 2 and 3 show the same information.

Reviewer #2: Well written article. The survey questionnaire addressed pertinent and the analysis is appropriately performed. The discussion is concise and is too the point.

The low response rate has been admitted as a limitation. However, the geographical distribution is biazed naturally towards countries with lots of publications. Perhaps the picture is worse in less developed regions.

**********

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.

PONE-D-22-31384R1

Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Willis,

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 Jun 09 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,

Suhad Daher-Nashif, MSc., PhD

Academic 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. You addressed most of the comments, but there still a need for minor revisions, in order to be able to make a final decision on your manuscript. 

These comments made by one of the reviewers: 

Figure 2 is now easier to read; however, the description incorrectly identifies the most desired training formats as all online. According to the new figure 2, the online resources/modules were ranked 5th after in person half day workshop and in person lecture.

"The most desired training formats were all online, including online lectures, online courses (at least 6 sessions),

online lectures, and online resources or modules."

The discussion now relates much more to the study findings but ends quite abruptly. I wonder whether a concluding statement would be beneficial; however, I do appreciate that this may be personal preference.

Appendix 2 needs to be renamed Appendix 1; similar for supplemental 4 to 3.

[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: (No Response)

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

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: Thank you for responding to all of the comments. A couple of very minor points.

Figure 2 is now easier to read; however, the description incorrectly identifies the most desired training formats as all online. According to the new figure 2, the online resources/modules were ranked 5th after in person half day workshop and in person lecture.

"The most desired training formats were all online, including online lectures, online courses (at least 6 sessions),

online lectures, and online resources or modules."

The discussion now relates much more to the study findings but ends quite abruptly. I wonder whether a concluding statement would be beneficial; however, I do appreciate that this may be personal preference.

Appendix 2 needs to be renamed Appendix 1; similar for supplemental 4 to 3.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing all the responses. I have no concerns about the revised version. I am happy with this version.

**********

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: 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.

Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey

PONE-D-22-31384R2

Dear Dr. Willis,

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,

Suhad Daher-Nashif, MSc., PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE