PONE-D-23-08865Did Covid-19 make things worse? The pandemic as a push factor stimulating the emigration of young doctors from Poland: a mixed methods studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pszczółkowska

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 article needs very serious changes. I fully agree with the reviewers' comments. Unfortunately, all elements of the text need to be improved, so the text would basically need to be rewritten. Of the elements I would particularly like to emphasize is the need to improve and update the literature review as well as build a narrative around the research problem and hypotheses. In doing so, please pay particular attention to the terms you use, and their conceptualization and consistency in using them. The entire methodology section needs to be improved so that it is clearer, more transparent and allows the reader to understand what has been done and thus enable replication of the research. 

Please separate discussion from results and from conclusion, include limitations and most importantly theoretical and managerial contribution.

The manuscript needs a lot of work And, unfortunately, it is difficult at this point to promise that it will be publishable once the text is improved. However, we see potential in it, so we hope that the authors will nevertheless attempt to improve the text, as the topic is very important and the research carried out is relevant.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 10.09.2023. 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,

Jolanta Maj

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The article needs very serious changes. I fully agree with the reviewers' comments. Unfortunately, all elements of the text need to be improved, so the text would basically need to be rewritten. Of the elements I would particularly like to emphasize is the need to improve and update the literature review as well as build a narrative around the research problem and hypotheses. In doing so, please pay particular attention to the terms you use, and their conceptualization and consistency in using them. The entire methodology section needs to be improved so that it is clearer, more transparent and allows the reader to understand what has been done and thus enable replication of the research.

Please separate discussion from results and from conclusion, include limitations and most importantly theoretical and managerial contribution.

The manuscript needs a lot of work And, unfortunately, it is difficult at this point to promise that it will be publishable once the text is improved. However, we see potential in it, so we hope that the authors will nevertheless attempt to improve the text, as the topic is very important and the research carried out is relevant.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

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: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to offer my suggestions to the authors for this article on the topic “Did Covid-19 make things worse? The pandemic as a push factor stimulating 14 the emigration of young doctors from Poland: a mixed methods study”. The study is interesting but may need some revision.

1. I am suggesting that the abstract should be structured; introduction, aims, methods, findings & conclusions. Please, kindly present significant findings and for the quantitative aspect give us the exact figures in the abstract.

2. In the introduction section the authors made a case for this study. However certain claims were made which may require some revisions

i. In line 65-68, the authors made assumption….. “Thus, we assume the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular, the response of the given health system and the working conditions for doctors may influence the decision to leave the country of residence”

ii. They went further make inferences based on the assumptions. I am suggesting these information could have be captured well enough.

3. A do not know if the literature review is necessary. Perhaps all those information could be summarized to make up the introduction.

4. I see some repetition in the work, I am suggesting to the authors to avoid repetition in the entire work.

5. The entire method secure is scanty and does not give vivid decriptio of how the study was done.

I. I am suggesting some links for you to read and consider a revision of the entire methods sections.

II. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4435#:~:text=Mixed%20methods%20research%20designs%20have,%2C%20implementation%2C%20and%20reporting%20stages.

III. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1558689819875832

IV. You can also visit the STROBE for checklist on observational studies (https://www.strobe-statement.org/checklists/ )

6. I can see the authors compared the results to discussion straight away in one headings.

7. This is making the results difficult to read through

8. The discussion does not actually provide adequate evidence from previous work. No adequate reasoning is provided to enable readers contextualize the key findings.

9. I am suggesting to the authors to consider writing the results separated from the discussion

10. The conclusion is too much. Please summarized

11. Include the limitation and strength

Overall, the manuscript is good but would need extensive revision. Thank you

Reviewer #2: Thank you for this interesting submission. Unfortunately, I feel as though it needs further work in order to be ready for publication. At the moment, certain terms and elements of the analysis remain unclear. For instance, the authors refer to 'young doctors' then 'new doctors' and then 'student doctors' 'medical graduates' 'medical students' 'future doctors' - please make this uniform and consistent so as not to confuse the reader. Perhaps a definition would help. Same goes for 'migration decisions' versus 'migration potential' or 'migration intentions' - these are not the same and so should not be used interchangeably (e.g. line 71 & 75). The analysis section needs further clarification i.e. it is unclear whether H2 was or was not confirmed; we don't know what 'qualitative analysis' was employed; details of respondents (at least the qual part) need to be provided to contextualise analysis, especially as issues related to gender are explored. I think that currently the paper reads as quite shallow in its analysis and the literature review does not do it any justice as it's not organized in a coherent manner to support the findings (e.g. line 90-91 - quite an obvious simplistic statement). The paper would benefit from a more structured debate and a closer proofread as in places it is difficult to follow the line of thought e.g. line 60-61; 278; 336. More consistency around tenses would be good. Some references are either quite old or not there e.g. the very first sentence of the introduction refers to a study from 2006; line 67, 232, 234, 264, 280 - missing references. Additionally, although the authors note 'this conclusion/findings have important implications for the ongoing discussion' they don't actually explain this statement or support it with some adequate examples as to how this is the case. I'm sorry if this seems as harsh but I do hope that this review will be helpful in strengthening this paper.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-08865R1Did Covid-19 make things worse? The pandemic as a push factor stimulating the emigration intentions of junior doctors from Poland: a mixed methods study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pszczółkowska, 

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.

==============================

I concur with the assessments provided by the two reviewers. Their insights and feedback have been invaluable in evaluating the submitted manuscript. It is clear that the manuscript has strong potential, but there are certain methodological aspects that warrant further clarification and refinement. Addressing these concerns will undoubtedly enhance the quality and rigor of the research. I encourage the authors to carefully consider the reviewers' suggestions and make the necessary revisions to ensure that the methodology is well-defined and robust.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 17 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,

Jolanta Maj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Thank you for this revised submission, it has much improved, yet, I feel it needs further work to make it of a publishable standard.

Here are my main concerns:

1. It is uncommon to have empirical contribution stated in the introduction, better to move it to conclusion.

2. Language needs tightening, it feels rushed e.g.:

100 'good ...' - what?

102 'destination' country?

284 'doctors' - meaning the participants?

451 which previous scholarship?

462 how?

decide whether to use LGBT or LGBTQ or LGBTQ+

3. The paper seems difficult to follow at times, e.g.:

330-331; 343 - yes, and what did they say?

4. The qualitative part i.e. the interview extracts seem to be just described in the analysis section - state what is particularly interesting and relevant to healthcare staff as it appears that most of what is reported could apply to the general public too.

5. The discussion section doesn't offer a discussion - a synthesis of the results is needed here.

6. The authors white of 'socio-political factors in the context of junior doctors' emigration intentions' - but most of the participants don't intend to emigrate, right? If so, then how is this the 'context'? Perhaps this should be rephrased as at the moment it seems that the paper is about covid's 'impact on migration decisions' but did they even consider emigration before they were asked about it?

Reviewer #3: A key strength of this study is the use of mixed methods with the same participant group, providing both quantitative data on migration intentions and qualitative insights into reasons behind them. However, the survey methodology requires clarification. More details are needed on survey response rate and representativeness. How many participants provided contact info for interviews and what was the response rate? Without this information, it is difficult to assess potential nonresponse or selection bias.

The authors should also clarify inconsistent labeling of the interview participants as both "medical students" and "junior doctors." It is applicable to the results section: the authors, when analyzing the quantitative survey results (lines 317-319), used the concept of "junior doctors" while the participants were still medical students at the time of the research.

Regarding generalizability, the lack of information on survey respondent distribution across different universities is a limitation. As social media recruitment was used, respondents beyond the targeted university may have participated without the authors' knowledge, hampering generalizability. Further details on number of respondents by university year would also be beneficial. The small interview sample raises similar concerns, as reasons for selecting 6 men and 3 women are unclear given gender distribution differences in the medical student/doctor population.

While the study provides useful exploratory data, the limitations hinder broad applicability of the conclusions. I suggest revising the framing to focus more precisely on this cohort rather than generalizing. Additional details on sampling and methodology are needed to assess rigor and potential biases. Discussion of study limitations should also be expanded. Overall, this is an interesting research question but requires refinement to match the appropriate scope of inference.

More detail suggestions:

Defining key terms like “migration intention,” “medical students,” and “junior doctors” should be moved to the introduction or methods section.

Line 169 – bracket needed

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-08865R2Did Covid-19 make things worse? The pandemic as a push factor stimulating the emigration intentions of junior doctors from Poland: a mixed methods studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pszczółkowska,

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.

==============================

Myself and the reviewers are very grateful for implementing the suggested changes in the text. In our opinion, the modifications have indeed addressed most of the crucial remarks. Nevertheless, there are still a few minor issues in the text that need further consideration, incorporation, or addressing, as indicated by the reviewers.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2024 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,

Jolanta Maj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Thank you for this revised submission. It has much improved, although, I still have a few issues with it:

1. 'Migration decisions have a very well established basis' - this is a very problematic statement in my view, which is due to existing scholarship which says otherwise and also due to how definitive it is. That said, I'm not here to argue my point of view and it may just be that, a point of view.

2. line 83 - 'pandemics' reads awkward; also, did I miss this lit review of the influence of health crisis the authors refer to? Additionally, this contradicts line 109 where it says that the review only includes publications from the ages 2009-2019 which is pre-covid.

3. line 178 - 'influx' is a negative word with pejorative connotations and thus I wouldn't use it when describing those seeking asylum due to an armed conflict - there's a debate on the new acceptable terms within migration studies that the authors may wish to follow.

4. I'd be very interested to learn the ages of the respondents but I recognize that this isn't necessary for this submission but it would give more context and enable better understanding of the results.

5. line 372 - 'resumed' ?

6. line 441 - it led to spreading the word/publicizing details in national media about women dying due to a lack of access to legal abortion and not to publicized cases

7. line 470 - I wouldn't call it 'under-recognized factor of hate speech' - see a list of available resources that came up through just a quick search:

https://blogs.bcm.edu/2023/07/14/hate-speech-in-healthcare/

https://czasopisma.uwm.edu.pl/index.php/mkks/article/view/6410

https://www.mirecc.va.gov/visn16/working-with-patients-who-use-hate-speech.asp

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429201813-6/bad-bedside-manner-sheri-wells-jensen-claire-wells-jensen

Reviewer #3: As I have reviewed the article in the first round, and had paid attention to necessary changes, which were incorporated by the authors in the subsequent submission, there are not too many comments on the reviewed text.

However, there are some suggestions:

It would be advisable to emphasize more clearly the justification for the necessity of conducting research in Poland – it is worthwhile to refer to the OECD report, providing specific indicators of the number of doctors/nursing staff per 1000 inhabitants in Poland.

There is a question about conducting a literature review for the years 2009-2019? (10-years period?).

There is a lack of a clear message/key presentation in the introduction of the literature review. Perhaps it is worth considering a division based on push and pull factors, factors related to different disciplines.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Did Covid-19 make things worse? The pandemic as a push factor stimulating the emigration intentions of junior doctors from Poland: a mixed methods study

PONE-D-23-08865R3

Dear Dr. Pszczółkowska

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Jolanta Maj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

After thorough consideration of the manuscript and the feedback provided by the reviewers, we have decided to accept the paper for publication, despite one of the previous reviewers declining to review the paper again.

Although one of the reviewers declined to participate in the review process again, it is noteworthy that the other reviewer, who has reviewed the paper for the third time, has accepted the paper. In their latest review, the reviewer expressed satisfaction with the revisions made by the authors and recommended acceptance of the manuscript.

Furthermore, upon careful examination, I found that the changes requested by the reviewer who declined to review again, following the previous round of minor revisions, have been adequately addressed by the authors. As an editor with expertise in the subject matter, I am confident that the manuscript now meets the standards of the journal in terms of clarity, methodology, and scholarly contribution.

Given the positive assessment from one reviewer and my own evaluation of the manuscript, I believe that inviting a new reviewer at this point may not significantly add to the review process. The revisions have been diligently implemented, and the paper now stands ready for publication.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the reviewers who have contributed their expertise to the review process and to the authors for their commitment to improving the manuscript.

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 #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 #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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 #2: No

**********

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 #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 #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********