“The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities: A survey of the largest Italian academic community”

Massimo Volpe; Massimo Ralli; Andrea Isidori

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304078

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 3, 2022
2 May 2023 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-22-11862“The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the largest Italian academic community: "Sapienza" University of Rome”PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Volpe, 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. First of all, apologies for the delay. The number of reviewers available for assessing this specific submission was little, and it was really difficult to achieve a second referee to provide an informed report on it. Once seen the review reports, my impression is that the paper needs several improvements and a further review to validate these amendments. Please consider (and respond to) the whole set of comments appended in this communication into the rebuttal letter of your paper, if you decide to revise it. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 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, Sergio A. Useche, 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. 4. Check the last line of the abstract to ensure it is the same. The reason for this check is to ensure that the AEs and Reviewers are sent correct information to allow them to make a good decision on whether they can manage/review the manuscript. Only send back for a change if the abstract on EM and in the manuscript are VASTLY different. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No 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: Abstract; Needs some review Introduction: The authors proposed an interesting research, however the introduction needs to some adjustments. What is the context of the study (needs improvement) ; explore the importance of the theme (needs improvement) ; the main goals and relevance of the study (good) how this study will contribute ( add). L60-61 discuss better: how double/triple journey of female researcher would be impacted specific in the context of the pandemic? The sentence is very general and accounts for what is already known. Ref.: Davis, P.B., Meagher, E.A., Pomeroy, C. et al. Pandemic-related barriers to the success of women in research: a framework for action. Nat Med 28, 436–438 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01692-8 L62-64 what about the race to research and publish articles in health science?Investiments in vaccines? Data sharing and cooperation internationally? Methods Why you don't have ethical approval for this research? How researchers developed the informed consent for participants? how you developed the questionnaires? you should at least get a weaver from the ethical committee of the university. Please contact the ethical committee of your institution and clarify this. Results Table 1 research type - check "filed"is it a research type? I don't understand. Supplementary data make sure to add data that are relevant to the study. Check the journal policy regarding data sharing and transparency in order to be in accordance to it Conclusions Make sure to add a bullet point Limitations It is always interesting to point it out Reviewer #2: The authors attempted to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities of a univeristy in Italy and identify the most critical issues, from a cross-sectional study. The findings may provide some evidence of the pandemic impacts on the research community in an insitution. The manuscript requires some substantial revisions before consideration of the journal: 1. the literature review was not organised and presented with sufficient evidence 2. the statistical analysis part was not elaborated and explained clealry, especially how the criteria and assumptions of a partciular statistical analysis were met, e.g. some questions in the survey allow selecting multiple answers, how did these considered in the statistical tests 3. the survey adopted was self-designed, some elaboration of the evidence of referencing to literature is required 4. the discussion part appears lacking in-depth discussion, some substantiation of the literature is required 5. an Italian academic insitution was selected as the study site, given its specificity in its organisation/system/roles of academic personnel as stated by the authors , the authors are required to add to explain how the findings would be useful to the wider academic community in other countries ****** 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: Yes: Rafaelly Stavale 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.0304078.r001
Revision 1
27 Jun 2023 Author Response 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 Answer: done 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. Response: done 3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. Response: Following journal’s requirements, we have uploaded the full anonymized dataset underlying the findings described in this manuscript in Figshare. DOI to uploaded file is: 10.6084/m9.figshare.23551743 We have integrated the materials and methods section specifying that the full dataset has been uploaded in Figshare. Data Availability Statement: Data is available from Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.23551743). 4. Check the last line of the abstract to ensure it is the same. The reason for this check is to ensure that the AEs and Reviewers are sent correct information to allow them to make a good decision on whether they can manage/review the manuscript. Only send back for a change if the abstract on EM and in the manuscript are VASTLY different. Response: Dear Editor, the abstract has been changed. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No 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: No 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: Abstract; Needs some review Introduction: The authors proposed an interesting research, however the introduction needs to some adjustments. What is the context of the study (needs improvement); explore the importance of the theme (needs improvement); the main goals and relevance of the study (good) how this study will contribute (add). Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have largely modified the introduction. In particular, we added in the introduction section paragraphs giving more insights and context in terms of existing literature, the importance of the subject matter, and the relative contribution of our study to the scientific knowledge that is currently available. Please see the red parts in the text. L60-61 discuss better: how double/triple journey of female researcher would be impacted specific in the context of the pandemic? The sentence is very general and accounts for what is already known. Ref.: Davis, P.B., Meagher, E.A., Pomeroy, C. et al. Pandemic-related barriers to the success of women in research: a framework for action. Nat Med 28, 436–438 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01692-8 Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Gender-related issues in research and teaching during the pandemic have been largely addressed in the new version with the relevant references. Generally, it seems that pre-existing barriers to academic activity have become amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are not fully consistent with some of the previous reports, probably as a consequence of some features of the information required in the questionnaires which we acknowledged as a limitation. We have therefore added a paragraph about female researchers facing the pandemic in the introduction as well as a specific discussion. Please see red parts in the text. L62-64 what about the race to research and publish articles in health science? Investments in vaccines? Data sharing and cooperation internationally? Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. This is a complex issue. During the pandemic, research activities related to Covid-19 have been privileged with a consequent increase in publication of COVID-19 related papers also owing to international unpreceded data sharing. Despite this, a reduction in international cooperation and and meetings in other fields has been observed and the accuracy of fast-track COVID-19 related publications has also been questioned. We have added multiple sentences in both the introduction and discussion about this. Please see red text in the manuscript (see introduction line 71-75; discussion page 26). This aspect was not an objective of our survey although it has been extensively investigated in previous studies as we mentioned in the introduction and discussion. Methods Why you don't have ethical approval for this research? How researchers developed the informed consent for participants? how you developed the questionnaires? you should at least get a weaver from the ethical committee of the university. Please contact the ethical committee of your institution and clarify this. Response: please see method section for the ethical approval. Results Table 1 research type - check "filed"is it a research type? I don't understand. Response: We are afraid the Reviewer may have misread “field (research)” as “filed (research)”. We intend Field research (or study) to comprise all subjects in which raw data is collected outside of a laboratory, workplace or library setting. This large field comprises social sciences observing people interact in their natural environment, biologists studying natural animal behaviour, and many archaeologists, anthropologists, economists, etc. Supplementary data make sure to add data that are relevant to the study. Check the journal policy regarding data sharing and transparency in order to be in accordance to it Response: We thank the Reviewer for his/her correct observation. We now provide the complete anonymized Excel database used for the current research and all the statistical analyses. Conclusions Make sure to add a bullet point Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We don’t know if a bullet point it is appropriate as for journal style. If so, we have provided a separate file with the bullet list. Limitations It is always interesting to point it out Response: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We added a Limitations section. Reviewer #2: The authors attempted to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities of a univeristy in Italy and identify the most critical issues, from a cross-sectional study. The findings may provide some evidence of the pandemic impacts on the research community in an insitution. The manuscript requires some substantial revisions before consideration of the journal: 1. the literature review was not organised and presented with sufficient evidence Response: we thank this reviewer for the comment. We have largely integrated both introduction and discussion with the available pertinent literature. Please see red text. 2. the statistical analysis part was not elaborated and explained clealry, especially how the criteria and assumptions of a partciular statistical analysis were met, e.g. some questions in the survey allow selecting multiple answers, how did these considered in the statistical tests R. We thank Reviewer #2 for his considerations and constructive criticism. Survey questions that allowed multiple answers were analysed and presented as follows: 1) in Table 2 with regards to the description of the research-related issues (no statistical testing); 2) in Tables 3 through 4 with regards to the overall research-related issues experienced based on academic position and according to the impact of gender, age, academic field (using ANOVAs, with no post-hoc testing); 3) in Tables 5 and 8 to assess independent predictors of the overall number of research related issues and the presence of economic burden (using multiple linear regression); 4) in Tables 6 and 7 to describe and assess the reasons for economic burden and suggestions to improve academic research, according to above-mentioned subgroups (using ANOVAs, with no post-hoc testing). Given the exploratory nature of our study, in which data are collected with an objective (“to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities and in the attempt to identify the most critical issues”), rather than with prespecified key hypotheses, we chose not to adjust for multiple comparisons, according to relevant literature on the topic (10.1530/EJE-20-1375, 10.1016/j.joca.2016.01.008, 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00314-0). As such we place low emphasis on specific significant comparisons, but rather focus on the description of the research cohort and on exploring risk factors for greater research burden. Lastly, we employed bootstrapping on 2000 samples as a robust regression methods to account for non-normal data distribution, reporting bias-corrected accelerated (BCa) 95% confidence intervals and adjusted R2 values (according to Nagelkerke) to describe the fit of our models. We have made these points clearer to the reader in the manuscript. 3. the survey adopted was self-designed, some elaboration of the evidence of referencing to literature is required Response: we thank the Reviewer for his/her correct observation. The questionnaire was indeed self-designed from the authors, who serve(d) as Governance Research Team at Sapienza University of Rome, based on the available literature on the topic, referenced in the Introduction and the Discussion sections. Specifically, the development of the survey focused on exploring the differential impact of the pandemic on different academic subgroups, expecting a greater toll on women (PMID 32409466), younger researchers and Ph.D. students (PMID 32493949), specific research activities (PMID 36530543), and researchers involved in clinical trials (35050229), etc. All these aspects are now better discussed in the Introduction section and the methodology is more clearly presented in Lines 149-151. 4. the discussion part appears lacking in-depth discussion, some substantiation of the literature is required Response: we thank this reviewer for the comment. We have largely integrated both introduction and discussion with available literature. Please see red text. 5. an Italian academic institution was selected as the study site, given its specificity in its organization/system/roles of academic personnel as stated by the authors, the authors are required to add to explain how the findings would be useful to the wider academic community in other countries Response: we thank this reviewer for the comment. As now clearly stated in the text, Sapienza is the largest university in Italy with many excellent departments. Academics of all degrees have taken part to this survey, therefore the authors think that results could be useful to a wider academic community. In order to meet this appropriate remark of the reviewer, we also proposed a modified title of the article which reflects the impact of pandemic of a very representative academic research community and on potential other institutions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304078.r002
15 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-22-11862R1“The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities in the largest Italian academic community”PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Volpe, 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. After a careful re-review, our Referee has changed their mind and suggests allowing you to conduct a further set of amendments on the basis of the comments appended below (see attached comments). Although the paper has not been advised for rejection anymore, but for major revisions, please perform a rigorous set of adjustments, given that the potential acceptance of it depends on the approval of the Reviewer in consideration of your amendments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 29 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, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. 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 #1: (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 #1: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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: 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 #1: No ****** 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, The manuscript is about an important topic and at several moments you addressed it well. However I have a few suggestions that may improve your research report. Study report and methods: please check the two references bellow about survey report. They are about the checklists you can use to increase quality and transparency of your research report. I suggest to use it, add to you methods section and to the supplementary files the checklists done. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys 1. (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. Erratum in: doi:10.2196/jmir.2042. PMID: 15471760; PMCID: PMC1550605. 2. Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, Nam NH, Ng SJ, Abbas KS, Huy NT, Marušić A, Paul CL, Kwok J, Karbwang J, de Waure C, Drummond FJ, Kizawa Y, Taal E, Vermeulen J, Lee GHM, Gyedu A, To KG, Verra ML, Jacqz-Aigrain ÉM, Leclercq WKG, Salminen ST, Sherbourne CD, Mintzes B, Lozano S, Tran US, Matsui M, Karamouzian M. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Oct;36(10):3179-3187. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1. Epub 2021 Apr 22. PMID: 33886027; PMCID: PMC8481359. The authors approach several important topics such as gender inequalities and disparities through science. However it is important to review some of the writing to avoid misleading conceptions. I suggest to improve the references used throughout the manuscript and to be careful when it comes to date of publications as well. Specially because early COVID-19 studies didn't had sufficient data. Introduction: The authors already worked on the introduction, still there are still some tings that should be taken into account. Why the study is important? What it can add to the scientific knowledge? (observations at the file attached). Methods: Please explain more about how the survey was developed. Use the checklists suggested above. Regarding the survey - what the authors mean about "family organization"? Regarding the "economic burden" - did you asked about it in the previous year? since the beginning of the pandemic? Did you consider a burden as a reduction at family income or just the respondent income? Have you performed a pilot study to test the survey? Stats: please add the tests results as supplementary information. the results of the stats tests will assist others to better understand your results and will increase transparency. Bootstrapping is not commonly used. Have you tested for normality before using bootstrapping ? The test may result in a few limitations for stats inference that was not addressed by the authors on the limitation section. More comments are at the file attached. Results: It would be interesting to add a flowchart of the survey production and results of respondents - at the beginning of the results section. Please check the references I add previously about survey reports. Discussion: It requires a few adjustments to correlates the authors findings with the current literature. Use this section to add how your main findings can be useful for future policies and practices in science. Please check the file attached with more observations. Conclusion: What are the main findings of your study? And a final recommendation? The conclusion is very broad and could reinforce the main findings and how it impacts science. OBS: It is not because the study was conducted in Italy that its findings are restricted to it or European countries. Science is borderless, find a way to express the general importance of your findings. References Please make sure to cite the papers at the end of each sentence; some references are probably in the wrong place - please check the file attached. Add more relevant references to support you idea. I suggested a few that you are not obligated to use. ****** 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: Yes: Rafaelly Stavale ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-11862_R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304078.r003
Revision 2
25 Feb 2024 Author Response Point-by-point Responses to Comments to the Authors Reviewer #1: Dear authors, The manuscript is about an important topic and at several moments you addressed it well. However, I have a few suggestions that may improve your research report. Study report and methods: please check the two references bellow about survey report. They are about the checklists you can use to increase quality and transparency of your research report. I suggest to use it, add to your methods section and to the supplementary files the checklists done. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys 1. (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. Erratum in: doi:10.2196/jmir.2042. PMID: 15471760; PMCID: PMC1550605. 2. Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, Nam NH, Ng SJ, Abbas KS, Huy NT, Marušić A, Paul CL, Kwok J, Karbwang J, de Waure C, Drummond FJ, Kizawa Y, Taal E, Vermeulen J, Lee GHM, Gyedu A, To KG, Verra ML, Jacqz-Aigrain ÉM, Leclercq WKG, Salminen ST, Sherbourne CD, Mintzes B, Lozano S, Tran US, Matsui M, Karamouzian M. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Oct;36(10):3179-3187. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1. Epub 2021 Apr 22. PMID: 33886027; PMCID: PMC8481359. R. We thank the Reviewer for her detailed and constructive comments and the suggestion to include the use of a survey checklist. We adopted the CROSS checklist by Sharma A. et al. and we present it in Supplementary material as Appendix S2. We further describe its use in the Methods section [Lines 149-151]. The authors approach several important topics such as gender inequalities and disparities through science. However, it is important to review some of the writing to avoid misleading conceptions. I suggest to improve the references used throughout the manuscript and to be careful when it comes to date of publications as well. Specially because early COVID-19 studies didn't have sufficient data. R. We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We have revised the whole manuscript with the support of an English mother-tongue person. In addition, we checked the references throughout the manuscript and we added new refs as suggested or appropriate. Introduction: The authors already worked on the introduction, still there are still some things that should be taken into account. Why the study is important? What it can add to the scientific knowledge? (observations at the file attached). We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have acknowledged all observations related to the Introduction in the manuscript. See text . Methods: Please explain more about how the survey was developed. Use the checklists suggested above. Regarding the survey - what the authors mean about “family organization”? Regarding the “economic burden” - did you asked about it in the previous year? Since the beginning of the pandemic? Did you consider a burden as a reduction at family income or just the respondent income? R. We thank the Reviewer for her observations. For the use of checklists see the point mentioned above. The questionnaire proposed to the participants was referred to the period going from the onset of the pandemic, up to April 2021. As it can be seen from the online survey administered to all participants (provided in full in the Supplementary material), the terms “family organization” (to make it more clear we now define this field as “impact on family organization”), “economic burden”, etc. were indeed chosen by the participants in their responses. As such, no specific definition or interpretation can be given by the authors; this is what the respondents chose the answer(s) as they felt it appropriate on the basis of their subjective experience. We agree with the Reviewer that it would be interesting to have more insights on the impact of the pandemic on “family problems” or “economic burden”, but this should be addressed in specifically designed studies. Have you performed a pilot study to test the survey? R. We did not conduct a pilot study. This is an obvious consequence of the sudden onset of the pandemic which prevented any previous experience. Stats: please add the tests results as supplementary information. the results of the stats tests will assist others to better understand your results and will increase transparency. Bootstrapping is not commonly used. Have you tested for normality before using bootstrapping? The test may result in a few limitations for stats inference that was not addressed by the authors on the limitation section. More comments are at the file attached. R. We thank the Reviewer for her observations. We would like to observe that the complete dataset was already made publicly available using the data repository Figshare (see point above) (we checked it again and it is fully accessible) in the previous step of the revision process, and we fully describe in the Methods section the complete statistical analysis employed. Furthermore, the results are completely presented in Tables 1 through 8. As such we believe full transparency is guaranteed, both to the Editor, the Reviewers and the readers. We indeed did analyze data distribution, and employed a robust and vastly used regression method, namely bootstrapping, to account for non-normal data, as specified in the Methods section: “Data distribution was visually inspected by analyzing the respective histograms and normality plots. […] A robust approach using bootstrapping for 2000 samples was employed to account for non-normal data distribution, and bias-corrected accelerated (BCa) 95% confidence intervals were calculated and reported.” Given the numerosity of the study sample size, we believe no specific limitations to study results and conclusions may arise from the use of bootstrapping. Results: It would be interesting to add a flowchart of the survey production and results of respondents - at the beginning of the results section. Please check the references I add previously about survey reports. R. We thank the Reviewer for her suggestion. As specified in the Methods section the online survey employed was collegially developed by the Sapienza University Governance Research Team, after careful review of the available literature on the topic, at the time of study design. Furthermore, considering that the study was cross-sectional in nature, and respondents were only asked to complete the survey at a single time-point, we believe that a flowchart would not add sensible information to the readers. With regard to online surveys checklist, we adopted the CROSS checklist by Sharma A. et al., as specified above. Discussion: It requires a few adjustments to correlates the authors findings with the current literature. Use this section to add how your main findings can be useful for future policies and practices in science. Please check the file attached with more observations. R. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have put our results in the context of the existing available literature and added several new references. We introduced a new paragraph about the relevance of our work (lines …..). Conclusion: What are the main findings of your study? And a final recommendation? The conclusion is very broad and could reinforce the main findings and how it impacts science. R. We have added a short summary of our findings in the conclusion. References Please make sure to cite the papers at the end of each sentence; some references are probably in the wrong place - please check the file attached. Add more relevant references to support you idea. I suggested a few that you are not obligated to use. R. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added new references and mentioned them at the end of each sentence in the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments to the Author 2502.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304078.r004
17 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-22-11862R2“The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities: a survey of the largest Italian academic community”PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Volpe, 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. Your revised paper has been re-reviewed. I'm happy to say that it will be considered acceptable for publication following minor revisions. Please proceed to apply the changes requested by the Reviewer # 3, and resubmit. As these amendments are slight, I will assess myself their adequacy, thus omitting a new round of reviews if they are sound enough. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 31 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, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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 #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: No ****** 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, there is just a few minor points to be revised. I appreciate all the comments and clarifications on the previous review. Congratulations on your research report. "All these factors may reduce opportunities for ERCs funding applications and for job applications, in the current context of job cuts and hiring freeze due to global financial pressures. On the other hand, many journals have granted deadline extensions for submitting academic work, financial reporting of ongoing projects has been postponed by some research institutions and universities, and the time limit for the expense of funding derived from grants has often been extended." - > please make sure to add the reference to support this information. Please correct: 'Although out study does not reflect a multicenter approach, it has been conducted in the largest Italian University and one of the largest academic communities in Europe and its findings are largely consistent with previous similar studies."to (...) our study (...) ****** 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: Yes: Rafaelly Stavale ******** [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.0304078.r005
Revision 3
3 May 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: Dear authors, there is just a few minor points to be revised. I appreciate all the comments and clarifications on the previous review. Congratulations on your research report. "All these factors may reduce opportunities for ERCs funding applications and for job applications, in the current context of job cuts and hiring freeze due to global financial pressures. On the other hand, many journals have granted deadline extensions for submitting academic work, financial reporting of ongoing projects has been postponed by some research institutions and universities, and the time limit for the expense of funding derived from grants has often been extended." - > please make sure to add the reference to support this information. Thank you for your comment. We have added some references to the bibliography (n 38-39) Please correct: 'Although out study does not reflect a multicenter approach, it has been conducted in the largest Italian University and one of the largest academic communities in Europe and its findings are largely consistent with previous similar studies."to (...) our study (...) Thank you, we have corrected the typo Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304078.r006
7 May 2024 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor “The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities: a survey of the largest Italian academic community” PONE-D-22-11862R3 Dear Dr. Volpe, 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, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thanks for the soundness of your amendments and for the promptness of the author responses. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304078.r007
Formally Accepted
13 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-22-11862R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Volpe, 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. Sergio A. Useche Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304078.r008

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 .