PONE-D-23-01585Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish InstitutionsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ollé,

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 28 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,

Joana Sousa

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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. 

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish Institutions

Manuscript No.: PONE-D-23-01585

This is a paper that describes the results of the online survey on open science in Spain indicated different perceptions of researchers. However, in its current version, I cannot support publishing this paper in the journal Plos One. The reasons are the following:

1. The abstract should include an underscore the scientific value added of paper, this section, it must structure in only one paragraph and include the main conclusions and implications.

2. In the introduction, the authors show a background and context of study. However, this section could explain in more detail: What is the new knowledge or value added of study? What is the research question or objectives? What makes the applied methodology suitable and superior in comparison to existing studies? What is the expected new insight gained by applying the method?, this section could include structure of manuscript and to improve literature review.

3. In the second section, authors describe methodology. This section needs to improve description of instrument with questions per category and the theoretical support, sample and strategies to analysis that guarantee robustness and reliability of the results.

4. Third section describes the main results; this section is adequate. However, the authors should explain significance level and statistics tests used.

4. Discussion must be improved including an analysis of results in comparison with literature strengths and shortcomings of this analysis and a short outlook on further research requirements and possible research extensions.

5. Conclusions are adequate.

I wish that these comments could help the author to improve the paper.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript (text, tables and figures), "Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish Institutions", focuses on the situation of open science in Spain and the results of a survey of Spanish researchers in 2021.

Major revisions

The bibliographic review refers both to declarations (senso lato), standards and laws (UNESCO, BOAI, European Union, Spanish rules...) as well as to scientific articles. In both aspects it is suggested to deepen the search for works on the habits of researchers, in order to offer a broader discussion. I also suggest insisting on reviewing in the previous literature other relevant topics, as these: how erratic the forms of results dissemination continue to be; the extreme situation of this phenomenon in the case of research data given their intrinsic diversity, in comparison with open access… This makes the difference between the success of the openning the articles and the difficulties for the research data.

The methodology used is rigorous for the field being analysed, including a more sophisticated multi-factor analysis for the Likert scale questions. I only have one question: are all the questions asked in the questionnaire reflected in the results or are some not included in the study? If so, please explain why.

The results are perfectly described, although it is worth noting that, in the figures, the questions are cut off. If it is not possible to show them in full, it is suggested that the questionnaire was published. If they are in the text itself when the data are given, it is suggested that they be highlighted with underlining/bold/quotes or any other typographical means.

The Discussion and Conclusions section is a bit sparse. As I have said, it is imperative to expand the literature review in order to this section went beyond the survey results presented. A comparison of the results in Spain with the situation in other countries would enrich the conclusions offered by the work. One major issue that emerges from the survey responses, the evolution of open access towards the APC payment model, is treated rather lightly. Being a global concern that affects countries with less investment in research, such as Spain, and which is expected to last over time, it is necessary to work on the bibliography in greater depth, for which http://hdl.handle.net/1866/21676 or https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704 are suggested. Other results concerning research data can be found at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101 or even for Spain at https://doi.org/10.3390/data5020029.

Minor revisions

-- "Open Access data Polis funder and institution" in this sentence, I think should be policies the term polis

-- "In terms of researchers' opinions on open peer review (Figure 14)" I think it's figure 13

-- "article 12 in the "Fostering of open science and Civic Science"" I think it is more widely translated as citizen science.

*3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Not mentioned

Reviewer #3: There are some issues with the plots. Some of the legends are not translated from Spanish. Many of the questions are trimmed, e.g.: Most hybrid journals in my discipline a... This is likely to be solved at editing stage. I find slightly confusing the fact that "Yes" is represented in orange (red?) and "No" in green in some of the questions. Again, maybe for the editor to decide.

It would be nice to compare these results with other countries with wider adoption of Plan S. Does it have any sort of influence in author's perceptions of OA? Maybe for a follow-up article.

I couldn't find table 4 ("Table 4 shows the number of factors obtained for each of the blocks of questions together with the KMO value which indicates the robustness of the factorial analysis"). It would be important to see it in order to validate the factorial analysis.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Sergio Ruiz-Perez

**********

[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.

Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish Institutions

PONE-D-23-01585R1

Dear Dr. Candela Ollé,

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,

Rut Lucas-Dominguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors achieved to improve the manuscript following the instructions of reviewers and it is adequate to publish in the journal considering the importance of the topic.

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: 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: Authors achieved to improve the manuscript and it is adequate to publish in the journal considering the importance of topic.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Clara Inés Pardo Martinez

Reviewer #2: No

**********