“It’s my calling”, Canadian dog rescuers’ motives and experiences for engaging in international dog rescue efforts

Kai Alain von Rentzell; Christiana Bratiotis; Alexandra Protopopova

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300104

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 12, 2023
24 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Harvie P. Portugaliza, Editor PONE-D-23-18268"It's my calling", Canadian rescuer's motives and experiences for engaging in international dog rescue effortsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. von Rentzell, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Qualitative research studies should be reported in accordance to the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist. Further reporting guidelines can be found in the Equator Network's Guidelines for reporting qualitative research. Indicate the author's bias as higlighted by one of the reviewers and explain how the authors manage this bias in doing the study. The authors state in the supplementary 1 that "the goal of this research is to support foreign dog adoption by gaining a better understanding of the rescue process directly from the people involved in foreign dog rescue." ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 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, Harvie P. Portugaliza, D.V.M., Ph.D. 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. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Qualitative research studies should be reported in accordance to the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist. Further reporting guidelines can be found in the Equator Network's Guidelines for reporting qualitative research. [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 Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: This is a small, subjective study, heavily based on opinion. It is a clear and well-written article. The information is presented in a predominantly balanced fashion, however, the limitations need to be expanded upon to adequately capture the authors' implicit bias. Limitations noted: There is no mention of the impact of the COVID pandemic on the volume of dogs available for foster/adoption in local shelters and it has been documented the pandemic did impact dog availability during the time the study was conducted. This is a potential bias or limitation. It is possible the low local shelter volume noted by the interviewees was due to the COVID pandemic and not an accurate representation of long-term dog availability in Canadian shelters. The authors' support of international dog rescue/adoption should be noted as a bias of this evaluation. The bias is stated in the S1 supplement in which the authors state they are in support of foreign adoption. It was also noted that no questions would be asked which could paint the rescues in an unfavorable light. Many rescues (including rescues the authors cited in this manuscript) violate federal dog importation rules in Canada and the U.S. to fast-track the purchase/adoption of dogs placing people and other pets at risk of exposure to potential diseases. The questions asked by the interviewer are not likely to capture the true practices some of these rescue groups engage in due to the authors self-declared support for these groups' activities. Line 911-913: suggest specifying post-operative analgesia was provided by the rescue. The way it's written could be interpreted as no analgesia was provided during the surgery which is inhumane, unethical, and against CVMA guidelines. Reviewer #2: The manuscript of von Rentzell and colleagues is a qualitative study on the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in dog import activities in Canada. Here are some comments: Abstract L27-29: Is there scientific evidence to support this generalization? Introduction L71: Properly write the scientific name. Methods Please add the COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist. L117: Is the number of respondents adequate (saturation)? Results and Discussion: Are there mechanisms in this study for triangulation by involving other stakeholders, such as policymakers and community members? ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300104.r001
Revision 1
16 Jan 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: This is a small, subjective study, heavily based on opinion. It is a clear and well-written article. The information is presented in a predominantly balanced fashion, however, the limitations need to be expanded upon to adequately capture the authors' implicit bias. Thank you for your comment. We agree that qualitative research samples a small number of participants and relies on the experimenter as the “instrument” for the analysis, necessarily adding subjectivity into the analysis. The sample sizes are determined not through a power analysis (as is in quantitative research that uses inferential statistics), but through a process of “saturation”, whereby adding additional members would not be deemed to add much additional insights for the particular research question. The “subjectivity” or the positions of the authors are stated in the manuscript under the “positionality statement” in the Methods section- as is typically done in qualitative research methodologies. Additionally, all data are available and the methods are described in detail allowing others to draw their own conclusions based on their own world-view. The purpose of our qualitative research is not to assess generality and not to provide data on the “average” dog importer. Instead, the goal is to provide insights into the lived experiences of stakeholders involved in dog import. We hope the reviewer sees the benefit of qualitative research in this topic area. Limitations noted: There is no mention of the impact of the COVID pandemic on the volume of dogs available for foster/adoption in local shelters and it has been documented the pandemic did impact dog availability during the time the study was conducted. This is a potential bias or limitation. It is possible the low local shelter volume noted by the interviewees was due to the COVID pandemic and not an accurate representation of long-term dog availability in Canadian shelters. Thank you for your comment. The potential effect of COVID-19 on the participants’ experiences has been added on lines 1070-1078. We hope that this newly added section helps to remind the readers of the unique timeline in which the study was conducted. The authors' support of international dog rescue/adoption should be noted as a bias of this evaluation. The bias is stated in the S1 supplement in which the authors state they are in support of foreign adoption. It was also noted that no questions would be asked which could paint the rescues in an unfavorable light. Many rescues (including rescues the authors cited in this manuscript) violate federal dog importation rules in Canada and the U.S. to fast-track the purchase/adoption of dogs placing people and other pets at risk of exposure to potential diseases. The questions asked by the interviewer are not likely to capture the true practices some of these rescue groups engage in due to the authors self-declared support for these groups' activities. Thank you for your comment. Regarding your concern for our biased support for foreign dog adoption, I believe the statement you are referring to is found in S1 Supplementary Materials - Letter of Initial Contact, in which we stated, “The goal of this research is to support foreign dog adoption by gaining a better understanding of the rescue process directly from the people involved in foreign dog rescue”. We would like to clarify that what we meant with “support foreign dog adoption”, was simply to explore this topic through scientific inquiry. More specifically, through a rich qualitative analysis of the experiences, perspectives, and ‘subjective realities’ of the people involved in this type of work. This is not to be confused with a biased illustration supporting international dog rescue. To our knowledge, no previous scientific work has explored this topic. By simply studying the international dog rescuers’ perspectives, this would “support” international dog rescue by providing the scientific community a better understanding rescue processes, and by sharing international dog rescuers’ unique experiences, perspectives, and attitudes. Regarding your concern for the interview questions being designed not to illustrate dog rescues in an unfavorable light, we believe you are referring to the statement also found in S1 Supplementary Materials – Letter of Initial Contact, in which we wrote, “We will not ask questions of a personal nature or any specific questions that may disrepute your organization”. This statement was added for two reasons: One, ethical reason, to ensure that participants were made clear of the types of questions they were going to be asked, and of the researcher’s intentions for this study; and two, to help with the recruitment process, as many dog rescue members expressed distrust of researchers due to previous bad encounters. This statement is not to be confused with a biased depiction of dog rescue in the current study. Line 911-913: suggest specifying post-operative analgesia was provided by the rescue. The way it's written could be interpreted as no analgesia was provided during the surgery which is inhumane, unethical, and against CVMA guidelines. Thank you for your suggestion. The sentence “We also pay for analgesics when our dogs get spayed” has been removed from the quoted passage. We believe that this resolves potential ambiguity in the medical procedure while maintaining the overall message of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: The manuscript of von Rentzell and colleagues is a qualitative study on the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in dog import activities in Canada. Here are some comments: Abstract L27-29: Is there scientific evidence to support this generalization? Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. Yes. This statement was based on the findings and reports of other scientific (and organizational) publications on the importation of dogs. I have attached a few references that support this general statement – that international rescue dogs are frequently relocated from areas with an abundance of free-roaming dogs to industrialized countries where free-roaming dogs are absent. Overall, we feel that this statement has sufficient scientific evidence to support it, and therefore, no changes were made to Lines 27-29. Please let us know if there is ambiguity in the way it is currently phrased. References: Doyle E, Gupta M, Spindel M, Dolan ED, Slater MR, Janeczko S. Impact of the timing of spay-neuter related to transport on disease rates in relocated dogs. Animals. 2020;10(4):1–11. Dogs Trust. Puppy Smuggling: Puppies still paying as Government delays [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/puppy-smuggling/041220_advert report_puppy smuggling a4_v15.pdf Munkeboe N, Lohse‐lind A, Sandøe P, Forkman B, Nielsen SS. Comparing behavioural problems in imported street dogs and domestically reared danish dogs—the views of dog owners and veterinarians. Animals. 2021;11(5):1–15. Pieracci EG, Williams CE, Wallace RM, Kalapura CR, Brown CM. U.S. dog importations during the COVID-19 pandemic: Do we have an erupting problem? PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2021;16(9 September):1–12. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254287 Norman C, Stavisky J, Westgarth C. Importing rescue dogs into the UK: Reasons, methods and welfare considerations. Veterinary Record. 2020;186(8):248. Introduction L71: Properly write the scientific name. Thank you for your comment. This section has been revised to address the correct scientific name of the zoonotic disease in humans. These names are not to be confused with the scientific names of the bacteria/parasite causing the disease. Methods Please add the COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research) Checklist. Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully considered the addition of COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) Checklist to the current manuscript. However, we have decided not to add COREQ checklist as we felt that the merit of adding this checklist was too minimal. We only identified three items from the checklist (item 12, item 18, and item 23) that could’ve been expanded on further in the current manuscript, and we feel that the methodological description, decision trail, and other practices we have engaged in to enhance the qualitative research rigor of the current study do not warrant the addition of the COREQ Checklist. Furthermore, we believe that expanding on the three items from COREQ checklist do not significantly benefit the current manuscript. For example, in COREQ Checklist item 12, we could’ve added why non-participants chose not to participate in the current study. Expanding on the possible reasons would be purely speculative and would not add significant value to the presented findings. Similarly, the reason for why the current study is missing item 18, Repeat interview (and whether they were conducted), and item 23, member checking is simply due to the limited timeline and resources for conducting the current study. Please let us know if you feel strongly that the COREQ Checklist is necessary for the current manuscript. L117: Is the number of respondents adequate (saturation)? Thank you for your comment. Lines 268-272 now outline how data saturation was assessed for the current study. To make sure our reviewers are aware of our reasoning behind the assessment of data saturation, I also provide additional description here: Data saturation was assessed based on the work by Saunders et al. (2018) and Braun and Clarke (2021). Given that the current study is guided by a constructionist epistemology, the assessment for data saturation do not follow the positivist (or realist ontological) notion of “reaching a fixed-point in which there is no new data to be sought/found”. Rather, the constructionist epistemology assumes that meaning is created in the process of the researcher’s deep immersion with the data (hence, “constructionist”). On this basis, new meanings are always theoretically possible, and the researcher makes the situated judgement on when to stop coding (often after reaching the point in which further data collection becomes counter-productive). For the current study, while we have made great efforts in recruiting as many participants as possible, recruitment proved to be a rather challenging task than we had initially anticipated. The study’s timeline and the effort involved in the recruitment process were also major constraints. Data collection was completed at 9 participants, as we judged that further recruitment and data collection would be unproductive. Nevertheless, we believe that 9 participants were sufficient for offering rich insight into international dog rescuer’s experiences and perspectives. References: Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity. 2018;52(4):1893–907. Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health [Internet]. 2021;13(2):201–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846 Results and Discussion: Are there mechanisms in this study for triangulation by involving other stakeholders, such as policymakers and community members? Thank you very much for your suggestion. We concur that involving other stakeholders, policymakers, or professionals in this discussion (perhaps through a focus group setting) would certainly be a fascinating approach to achieve triangulation. However, this would require a considerable amount of preparation and work to accomplish, which is beyond the scope and capabilities of the current study. We hope that future studies can attempt to do this, as we have recommended in lines 708-714. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300104.r002
23 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Harvie P. Portugaliza, Editor "It's my calling", Canadian dog rescuers' motives and experiences for engaging in international dog rescue efforts PONE-D-23-18268R1 Dear Dr. von Rentzell, 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, Harvie P. Portugaliza, D.V.M., Ph.D. 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: (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: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300104.r003
Formally Accepted
21 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Harvie P. Portugaliza, Editor PONE-D-23-18268R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. von Rentzell, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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. Harvie P. Portugaliza Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300104.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 .