Comprehensive intervention for reducing stigma of autism spectrum disorders: Incorporating the experience of simulated autistic perception and social contact

Masaki Tsujita; Miho Homma; Shin-ichiro Kumagaya; Yukie Nagai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288586

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 22, 2022
8 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Jerritta Selvaraj, Editor PONE-D-22-20693Comprehensive Intervention for Reducing Stigma of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Incorporating the Experience of Simulated Autistic Perception and Social ContactPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tsujita, 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 Feb 22 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, Jerritta Selvaraj 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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “The authors declare that they have no competing interests.” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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: No 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: 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: 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: some procedural and statistical errors were found in research paper, the author need special attention to correct these procedural and statistical errors. the method and result section need further clarity and advancement Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study and the authors have collected a unique dataset using the cutting-edge methodology. The paper is generally well structured. However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings in regard to some text. In the manuscript, numerous text is vague and rambling (e.g. line 53-57, 61-64, etc.) It is suggested to edit the manuscript carefully and rewrite the long sentences to make them more impactful and easy for the reader. In discussion, it is suggested to cite literature which is supporting your argument even if the hypothesis is not accepted. In the Limitation section, the author has given recommendations. It is suggested to write recommendations under different headings instead of rambling limitations. Furthermore, there is no need of mentioning results in this section. With Given these shortcomings, the manuscript requires revisions. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: pd.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288586.r001
Revision 1
17 Mar 2023 Author Response >Review Comments to the Author >Reviewer #1: some procedural and statistical errors were found in research paper, the author need special attention to correct these procedural and statistical errors. the method and result section need further clarity and advancement We described detailed procedure on protocols.io, and conducted additional analysis to confirm that the extraneous variables are controlled in this study. We also added a new table to display participants’ characteristics. >Abstract >Described the sample selection, procedure, age, and gender base characteristics of the sample briefly. We added information of the sample and procedure. >Introduction is good and well write, need some advance researches. We replaced some references in Introduction with more recent one. >Method >2) Sentence no 134, need rephrasing. As you mentioned, the first sentence in the section of Research design was unnecessary and helpless to understand the research design. We therefore deleted it. >3) Explain the standard procedure and protocol, while conducting experimental research. We described the protocol of this intervention on protocol.io according to recommendation of the editor. We added supporting information section to the manuscript to inform readers about it. >4) Result discrepancy while assessing the attitude online (pre-test), while the other two-assessment method face to face with individual. Justify? The follow-up test was not face to face with individual but was online as well as the pretest. We therefore concluded that decrease of the negative affect score and increase of the behavior score at the follow-up test were not caused by the difference between online or face to face. Rather, it is possible that the difference of assessing method might induce increase of the calm score at the workshop period test. We added the explanation of the possibility at line 159. >5) Participants demographic characteristics such as age, education, financial status, and occupation are missing. Participants’ age was described at line 245 and Table 1. We could not include questions about education, financial status, and occupation in the sociodemographic questionnaire for a careless mistake. We added the explanation at line 280. >6) How the extraneous variables are controlled while conducting experimental method. As for allocation bias, we randomly assigned two adjacent days to either the beginning or end groups. It seems that there was no allocation bias in this study, considering the results that there was no difference of age, gender, and interaction with individuals with ASD between the beginning and end groups. We also conducted additional analysis to confirm the allocation bias was controlled (see question 8). As for sampling bias, we could not sufficiently control sampling because we recruited participants through a developmental disability support company and as a results most of them were caregivers or families of individuals with ASD. We discussed this sampling bias in the Limitation section starting from line 570. >7) Need further tabulation on the bases of participant’s characteristics. We added table of sociodemographic variables as Table 1. >8) Need further analysis clarify the result? In order to confirm that the allocation bias did not affect the long-term attitude changes, we additionally conducted a two way mixed ANOVA with two tests (within-subject factor; pretest, follow-up test) and two groups (between-subject factor; beginning group, end group). >9) Overall manuscript are not according the standard format APA 7th We checked our manuscript and corrected the style and format, according to PLOS ONE submission Guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). >Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study and the authors have collected a unique dataset using the cutting-edge methodology. The paper is generally well structured. However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings in regard to some text. In the manuscript, numerous text is vague and rambling (e.g. line 53-57, 61-64, etc.) It is suggested to edit the manuscript carefully and rewrite the long sentences to make them more impactful and easy for the reader. >In discussion, it is suggested to cite literature which is supporting your argument even if the hypothesis is not accepted. In the Limitation section, the author has given recommendations. It is suggested to write recommendations under different headings instead of rambling limitations. Furthermore, there is no need of mentioning results in this section. With Given these shortcomings, the manuscript requires revisions. We agree that the manuscript was vague and rambling, therefore we rewrite it to be clarify and easy to read. In Introduction, we deleted redundant explanations of references and combined some paragraphs. In discussion, we added a paragraph with citations of related literatures to support our argument at line 556-567. We removed recommendations from the Limitations section to the new section named Future Directions and Conclusion. We also deleted mentions of results. Additionally, we deleted a paragraph mentioning internalized stigma in Limitations section because it is extraneous. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288586.r002
2 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Filippo Manti, Editor Comprehensive Intervention for Reducing Stigma of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Incorporating the Experience of Simulated Autistic Perception and Social Contact PONE-D-22-20693R1 Dear Dr. Tsujita, 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, Filippo Manti Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288586.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Filippo Manti, Editor PONE-D-22-20693R1 Comprehensive Intervention for Reducing Stigma of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Incorporating the Experience of Simulated Autistic Perception and Social Contact Dear Dr. Tsujita: 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. Filippo Manti Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288586.r004

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 .