Radiographers’ perceptions on the quality of managing general radiographic paediatric examinations through the use of a reflective tool

Kate Caruana; Chris Hayre; Chandra Makanjee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295603

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 30, 2023
25 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke, Editor PONE-D-23-26933Radiographers’ perceptions on the quality of managing general radiographic paediatric examinations through the use of a reflective toolPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Caruana, 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. ============================== The paper is addressing an important area and it would be good for the readership of the journal. Before it can be published, the authors should clearly highlight the gap in literature that the study sought to address and also discuss the key implications of the findings to practice. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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, Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke 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 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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. 3. 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: The authors should try to highlight the gap in literature that the study sought to address in the introduction and they should also discuss the implications for practice in the discussion [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors discuss the reflective tool in the Materials and techniques section. Even while reflection is addressed, it is unclear where the qualitative technique fits in. The author should be more precise in defining and specifying the inclusion of the qualitative component in their study by showing that 'open-ended questions.' were used in section two. The response rate was quite low. The author should include brief details for the reasons. The conclusion of the study could be improved to summarise the highlights of the study better. The current conclusion does not summarise the findings well. The authors could indicate non-generalisability of the findings more so, because of the response rate. Also, indicate areas for future research and the importance of using the tool. ****** 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 ******** [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.0295603.r001
Revision 1
16 Nov 2023 Author Response Rebuttal Letter Original Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-26933 Original Article Title: “Radiographers’ perceptions on the quality of managing general radiographic paediatric examinations through the use of a reflective tool” To: PLOS ONE Re: Response to Reviewers Dear Editor, Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We are uploading (1) Our point-to-point response to the comments below (Response to Reviewers) (2) A marked-up copy with track changes (Revised Manuscript with Track Changes) (3) An unmarked version without track changes (Manuscript) Kind regards, Kate Caruana Corresponding Author Medical Radiation Practitioner Email: kate.caruana@act.gov.au Tel No: (+61) 498 108 772 Date: 14 November 2023 Reviewer#1, Concern #1: Reviewer’s comment: The authors should try to highlight the gap in literature that the study sought to address in the introduction and they should also discuss the implications for practice in the discussion. Authors’ response: We have revised the introduction and discussion, adding some information regarding the gap of literature and implications for practice. Reviewer#1, Concern #2: Reviewer’s comment: The authors discuss the reflective tool in the Materials and techniques section. Even while reflection is addressed, it is unclear where the qualitative technique fits in. The author should be more precise in defining and specifying the inclusion of the qualitative component in their study by showing that 'open-ended questions.' were used in section two. Authors’ response: We have addressed this concern in the materials and methods section, clearly showing that open-ended questions were used in section two of the questionnaire. Reviewer#1, Concern #3: Reviewer’s comment: The response rate was quite low. The author should include brief details for the reasons. Authors’ response: This has been previously addressed in the discussion within the limitations of the study. We have revised this section. Reviewer#1, Concern #4: Reviewer’s comment: The conclusion of the study could be improved to summarise the highlights of the study better. The current conclusion does not summarise the findings well. The authors could indicate non-generalisability of the findings more so, because of the response rate. Also, indicate areas for future research and the importance of using the tool. Authors’ response: Many thanks for your kind suggestion. We have rigorously revised the conclusion, summarising the key findings as well as providing information regarding future research. NOTE: We have further addressed the Journal Requirements as follows: Concern #1: 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 Authors’ response: We have reviewed and followed the PLOS ONE’S style and format in the revised manuscript. Concern #2: 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 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Authors’ response: We have amended the cover letter to address the ethical/legal restrictions of sharing the data set. Concern #3: 3. 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. Authors’ response: We have reviewed the reference list and ensured its correctness and completeness. We have added and amended the reference list with additional papers to enhance the literature gap as requested by the reviewer. Whilst no papers were removed/retracted from the reference list as all papers were available, one reference was updated to reflect the latest best practice. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295603.r002
27 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke, Editor Radiographers’ perceptions on the quality of managing general radiographic paediatric examinations through the use of a reflective tool PONE-D-23-26933R1 Dear Dr. Caruana, 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, Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for addressing all comments Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295603.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke, Editor PONE-D-23-26933R1 Radiographers’ perceptions on the quality of managing general radiographic paediatric examinations through the use of a reflective tool Dear Dr. Caruana: 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 customercare@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. Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295603.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 .