PONE-D-23-02627Personality and emotional intelligence of researchers: the importance of affectsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hernando,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sohaib Mustafa

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 ethical approval in the body of your manuscript. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified the name of the IRB/ethics committee that approved your study.

3. 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.

4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. "An earlier version of this paper was presented at the V National Congress of Psychology and International Symposium on Public Health Psychology (CNP2021), Online, July 9-11, 2021. A preprint can be found in one of our affiliation's working paper repository: https://www2.ingenio.upv.es/es/working-papers/personality-and-affects-researchers-emotional-intelligence . The submission introduces a major change of methodology, from regression analysis to structural equation modelling, with consequent adaptations throughout the text. The change is so substantial that the submission includes an additional author, Anabel Fernández-Mesa, expert in structural equation modelling." Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.   

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

   a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

   b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your work is of great potential, but reviewers found some loopholes which can be improved to highlight your findings further.

Reviewer noticed that your work lacks in support of arguments. I suggest you cite and compare your work findings to recently published work on big five personality traits to reflect better and explain your findings. You can consider articles such as,

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10447318.2023.2201551

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.956281

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article is indeed very interesting and thouroughly performed, but in my opinion the authors should focus better on outlining the importance of their study instead of describing the review of the literature since this is a research article. Therefore, please remove the unnecessary details from the first section and mention only an introduction regarding the current study.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript „Personality and emotional intelligence of researchers: the importance of affects”.

This study analysis the relationships between personality traits, emotional intelligence (EI) and positive and negative affect among the scientific population.

I make the following recommendations to improve the manuscript:

1. ABSTRACT: The abstract should be concise and informative.It should briefly describe the purpose of the work, techniques and methods used, major findings with important data and conclusions. Please edit the aim of the research. Briefly mention the main aim of the work and then write the specific aim.

2. Cite references in brackets (for example, “[1]” or “[2-5]” or “[3,7,9]”).

3. INTRODUCTION: Please improve introduction.

a. Introduction should be shorter and has the most important informations. Please explain why this research is so important and why you want to fill the gaps about the personality and emotional intelligence of researchers.

b. Why you made so many subsections?

c. Please clearly define the aim of the work and the the hypothesis.

4. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Please improve this section,

a. Participants:

b. Why did you contact only with corresponding authors for publications appearing in the Web of Science (WoS) from 2013 to 2016? Why did you choose these years?

c. Why was you not ask socioeconomic status?

d. Please rewrite the characteristic of the respondents.

e. Please add: exlusion and inclusion criteria

f. It seems necessary to clarify how the representative sample was calculated and to make a flowchart of the enrollment of respondents and study procedures. You should explain the sample size calculation in order to know if this sample is representative.

g. Statistical Analysis: please improve this section. Did you use only Pearson correlation? The main issue of the paper is that, the description of the statistical analysis plan is unclear. While there are many results that are presented, only one paragraph was devoted to the statistical analysis. The authors need to pay more attention into the details of analysis plan in order to make the paper scientifically rigorous. Please add all information about analysis in this section, not in the results.

h. The design of the study is not explained, please describe it.

i. I think you should write a section related to Ethical Considerations. You should clarify the ethics of your research. Please add sentence: „The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the …”.

j. RESULTS:

i. each of the results should be mentioned in more depth and more readable for the reader.

k. DISCUSSION: Please improve this section.

i. The discussion of the results should be done in a more in-depth way.

ii. The discussion should discuss the implications of the findings in general and be supported by relevant and related articles.

iii. I miss an introductory paragraph in which the aim of the research and the main results found are remembered. In general, the wording of the discussion could be better. I suggest preparing some kind of summary with gaps indication and future perspective

l. CONCLUSION: The conclusion must include a summary of the key ideas and the most important issues raised throughout the research paper. Please add this subsection!

m. LIMITATION: please add limitations like subsection. Please discuss widely the advantages and disadvantages of this research, identify knowledge gaps in the existing literature, and try to indicate the needs for future research.

**********

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-23-02627R1Personality and emotional intelligence of researchers: the importance of affectsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hernando,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 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,

Sohaib Mustafa, 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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: This manuscript delves into the crucial role that the Big Five personality traits play in the emotional intelligence of researchers. The subject matter of this study is intriguing, and a substantial dataset has been employed to validate the article’s hypothesis. However, the reviewers have identified several areas for improvement:

1. The introduction of the manuscript could benefit from a more thorough explanation. This should underscore the research question posed by the article, the objectives of the research, and the significance of the study.

2. The article would be strengthened by a more exhaustive review of the relevant literature, which would help to substantiate the hypotheses presented.

3. Given that Plos One is a multidisciplinary journal with a diverse readership, it would be beneficial for the author to dedicate a few paragraphs to introducing the concept of personality traits. Additionally, recent comprehensive discussions on technological innovation and pro-environmental behavior should be included. This would enable readers to better comprehend the importance of this study.

4. The manuscript’s academic writing style requires enhancement. The use of subjective pronouns such as “we” and “I”, as well as subjective expressions like “may be”, should be avoided to maintain a professional tone throughout the article.

5. In the “design of the study” section, the author should provide a more detailed account of the data collection process. This could include information about the platform used to distribute the questionnaire. It would also be helpful to report some basic demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as their tenure in the research industry and their roles within it (e.g., graduate student, junior scholar, senior scholar, manager, etc.).

Reviewer #4: It’s an interesting study however authors are needed to incorporate certain changes to make this study publishable.

1. The introduction section of the study needs improvement. The research background (common ground) and gap (complexity) are unclearly covered. Please allow me to offer an alternative and in my opinion, more intuitive and attractive way of structuring an introduction. I suggest that the authors follow the suggestions of Lange and Pfarrer, (2017) when structuring the introduction. Such structure allows completing the introduction with five major paragraphs with central story line.

Lange,D., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2017). Editors' comments: Sense and structure- The core building blocks of an AMR article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 407-416

2. I would also suggest to cite additional relevant literature which demonstrate the affective health of knowledge workers that is crucial for the betterment of researchers' affective and practical well-being cum enhanced performance.

1. Shafait, Z., & Huang, J. (2023). Exploring the Nexus of Emotional Intelligence and University Performance: An Investigation Through Perceived Organizational Support and Innovative Work Behavior. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 4295-4313.

3. Literature/ use of theory. As a rule of thumb, make the lit review about the same length as the discussion. But you cannot make this more than 1800 words long, to stay within your word limit. In terms of the content, you need to go beyond describing a series of relevant references and tell us how your interpretation of the literature shows the gaps that exist, and how the proposed approach to the literature brings about novel opportunities to reinterpret the literature that will allow advancement in our understanding in the field. The literature review is too descriptive, and I cannot see the wood for the trees.

Please work on your theoretical underpinnings. How theory can be fixed with these variables and can contribute. Incorporating the “WHY” factor is important.

4. Methodology. You need to better justify your choice of methodology, and whether this is either innovative or the standard approach, for your theoretical framework (bearing in mind that the theoretical framework is not clearly defined).

5. Results and discussion. While the results are rigorous, their interpretation is quite descriptive and lacks originality. The format of your writing means that you are playing safe here, for example, you mechanically show how your findings corroborate aspects of the literature that were already well-known to the readers. Instead, you ought to be more ambitious here, and show what’s really new about your findings, but also how does your work expand the current understanding of what the literature has already reported, how you are saying something that makes a substantial change in our collective understanding that all authors studying this field should be aware of and cite in the future. Your contribution needs to be much more explicit; your discussion needs to genuinely expand the boundaries of knowledge.

6. Discussion. This needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what you have found to the wider world. You need to emphasize the significance of your work: How does your finding help us transform researchers towards being more mental-health friendly?

7. Conclusions. This section needs more than a summary of the previous sections and adds value. You need to emphasize and explicitly spell out the contribution to the theory that your analysis brings about.

Discussion should be done considering the tested hypotheses. Please read and cite the latest papers as there are a lot of recent papers on this topic on the Web of Science.

Revisit your theoretical implication. Didn’t find any theory and you have concluded your theoretical implications.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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-23-02627R2Personality and emotional intelligence of researchers: the importance of affectsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hernando,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

• Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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,

Sohaib Mustafa, 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.

[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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: The reviewers believe that the manuscript has been revised and improved significantly by the authors. Before recommending acceptance of the manuscript, the reviewer also has a small suggestion for the authors to consider: the manuscript will further highlight the need for the research question, especially whether the group of academic workers is representative and whether the findings of this study have chance. Be extended to more groups and have possible contributions to application-based applications.

Reviewer #4: Authors have responded to the raised concerns comprehensively; therefore, I suggest acceptance of this manuscript in current form.

Best wishes for authors

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

Personality and emotional intelligence of researchers: the importance of affects

PONE-D-23-02627R3

Dear Dr. Hernando,

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,

Sohaib Mustafa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (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 #3: No

**********