The overseas background of Chinese returnee energy scientists

Jin Liu; Wenjing Lyu; Jiaxu Shi; Wanrong Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290959

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 28, 2023
11 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Julian D. Cortes, Editor PONE-D-23-08796Are overseas Chinese energy scientists returning to China? A CV analysis of 40 Chinese research universitiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lyu, 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 May 26 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, Julian D. Cortes 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 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. Additional Editor Comments: See comments below Dear author/s, thanks for submitting your work to PLoS ONE , I contrasted the core sections of your work with our seven criteria for publication and I consider you could work on the following points before sending it for review: 1 Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail Consider expand the description of both bibliographic databases of scientific (WoS) and patent publications (Derwent). Concerning WoS, expand the differentiation between disciplines, areas of research, and subject categories used (i.e., there are four subjects in energy science and technology, which were examined?). Concerning patents, expand the patent search query and inclusion compare to other patent databases such as PATENTSCOPE or PATSTAT, does this refinement change your outlook? Consider the accuracy of introducing the ‘big data CV’ term/concept. Since the sample is around ~1600 scientists, it is not clear why this sample should be considered as ‘big data.’ Consider expand the accuracy and completeness of institutional CV for researchers (e.g., out of ~1,600 resumes, how complete the information was retrieved? There was complete information for all variables (module, information, index, indicators) for all scientists? 2 The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English The article needs copy editing. There are missing words to make coherent sentences (e.g., lines 62-63: “This paper will [missing] China as an example […]; lines 70-71: “ has a total of 2,078 articles, of which [missing] universities author 1,178”). The meaning of core ideas may be misleading given the current state of the paper. There are sections in bold type for no particular reason (e.g., lines 131-132: “China has set ambitious goals, and improving energy efficiency is the key to achieving these goals”) 3 The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability Data Availability Authors must follow standards and practice for data deposition in publicly available resources including those created for gene sequences, microarray expression, structural studies, and similar kinds of data. Failure to comply with community standards may result in rejection. The authors checked in the submission that “all data are fully available without restriction.” However, I could not identify any attached file or permanent link. The authors might consider providing open access to their dataset after anonymizing any personal information and make available in a permanent link (e.g., DOI) in a public data repository. This is extremely valuable for replication/triangulation studies. Here more information on PLoS ONE data availability policy: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability I hope you can incorporate the above suggestions to improve your already valuable work before sending it to review. Sincerely, Julián D. Cortés Associate Editor [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0290959.r001
Revision 1
15 Jul 2023 Author Response July 5, 2023 Dear editors of PLOS ONE, We appreciate your valuable feedback, and we have carefully revised the manuscript based on your suggestions. Below are our detailed responses to each suggestion: 1.“Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.” Our reply: Thanks! Our manuscript format has been modified according to PLOS ONE style requirements, including use the correct file names. 2.“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.” Our reply: Thanks! In our revised cover letter, we explained that “In light of the potentially sensitive individual information contained in the original CV data of the energy scientists, we have decided not to publicly share the original data. However, interested parties can submit a reasonable data request to the data access committee of this paper (digital@mit.edu) gain access to the original confidential data. In addition, we have uploaded the aggregated and anonymized dataset that was used to generate all the figures and tables presented in our manuscript. The aggregated anonymized dataset is included as the Supporting Information Files.” 3.“Consider expand the description of both bibliographic databases of scientific (WoS) and patent publications (Derwent). Concerning WoS, expand the differentiation between disciplines, areas of research, and subject categories used (i.e., there are four subjects in energy science and technology, which were examined?).” Our reply: Thanks for point out this concern. We also focused on the subfield of energy scientific paper publications within the realm of technology and physical sciences. The top ten countries in terms of scientific energy paper publications in these two subfields from 2000 to 2020 are presented in S1 Fig. 4.“Concerning patents, expand the patent search query and inclusion compare to other patent databases such as PATENTSCOPE or PATSTAT, does this refinement change your outlook?” Our reply: Thanks for point out this concern. we also checked the top ten energy patentees in additional patent database: PATSTAT. The results stay consistent. Actually, search results from the PATSTAT suggest that Chinese patentees occupied eight positions in 2015 (compared to five in Derwent patent database), and all top ten energy patentees are Chinese entities in 2020 in the PATSTAT (compared to nine out of ten in Derwent patent database). The Top ten energy patentees from the PATSTAT database are reported in S2 Fig. 5.“Consider the accuracy of introducing the ‘big data CV’ term/concept. Since the sample is around ~1600 scientists, it is not clear why this sample should be considered as ‘big data.’” Our reply: Thanks for point out this. The approximately 1600 energy scientists included in our study give a comprehensive representation of major research universities in China. We have taken note of your feedback and have removed any references or presentations related to "big data" from the manuscript. 6.“Consider expand the accuracy and completeness of institutional CV for researchers (e.g., out of ~1,600 resumes, how complete the information was retrieved? There was complete information for all variables (module, information, index, indicators) for all scientists?” Our reply: Thanks for point out this. We revised the manuscript to explain the data collection process more clearly. “Following the CV collection, we engaged in a meticulous process of manually extracting all vital details. These details encompass the energy scientist's personal information, educational background, and postdoctoral work experience. Table 1 offers a snapshot of the kind of information extracted from the energy scientists' CVs. Any CVs found lacking in information were excluded from the research sample. Moreover, we manually supplemented the extracted data with each university's rank, as per the Quacquarelli Symonds University Ranking (QS Ranking). After eliminating CVs with incomplete data, we were left with a comprehensive set of 1,608 CVs energy scientists’ CVs. These CVs contained complete data for all the indicators specified in Table 1 and were retained for further analysis.” So, for the 1,608 CVs we used to conduct all of our analysis, the information for all variables is complete. 7.“The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. The article needs copy editing. There are missing words to make coherent sentences (e.g., lines 62-63: “This paper will [missing] China as an example […]; lines 70-71: “has a total of 2,078 articles, of which [missing] universities author 1,178”). The meaning of core ideas may be misleading given the current state of the paper. There are sections in bold type for no particular reason (e.g., lines 131-132: “China has set ambitious goals, and improving energy efficiency is the key to achieving these goals”)” Our reply: Thanks for point out this. We have diligently revised the manuscript, ensuring a coherent flow of information, removing unnecessary formatting such as bold displays, and enhancing the language for improved clarity and readability. Sincerely, Wenjing Lyu, Research Associate of Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, United States of America. E-mail: wjlyu@mit.edu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE-Response to the editor-v3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290959.r002
21 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Radoslaw Wolniak, Editor The overseas background of Chinese returnee energy scientists PONE-D-23-08796R1 Dear Dr. Lyu, 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, Radoslaw Wolniak, full professor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: I Don't Know 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: Dear Authors I accepted the paper. The Chinese economy is intrusive to other economies of the world, it has changed so quickly. In addition, every reader of this journal will want to know as much as possible about the changes in China.I have one more remark, change the font to black on Figures. Best wishes Reviewer Reviewer #2: The authors made significant corrections to the manuscript. I recommend publication in its present form. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290959.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Radoslaw Wolniak, Editor PONE-D-23-08796R1 The overseas background of Chinese returnee energy scientists Dear Dr. Lyu: 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 Radoslaw Wolniak Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290959.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 .