Overcoming the Tropical Andes publication divide: Insights from local researchers on challenges and solutions

Jose W. Valdez; Lucía Castro Vergara; Gabriela Orihuela; Miguel Fernandez

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306189

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 16, 2024
30 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Umberto Baresi, Editor PONE-D-24-01605Understanding the Biodiversity Research Publication Gap in the Tropical Andes: Unveiling Challenges and Implementing SolutionsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Valdez, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== I am pleased to advise you of the decision of PLOS ONE to accept your manuscript, pending edits as indicated by the reviewers below. In addressing the reviewers' comments, I suggest to add a sub-section of your paper, in the Methods section, named "Limitations of the study". In this sub-section, you could elaborate a bit on the negative comments that the reviewers provided. For example, I encourage you to take advantage of this section to explain limitations picked up by either reviewer towards the points below for which the reviewer considered that 'No', some publication criteria were not met. This would be an opportunity for you to shed some light on why the paper is sound even if some flaws might be detected by your audience. Also, please consider carefully and address comments highlighted at point 5 below, by each reviewer. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 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, Umberto Baresi, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This research received funding from the ERANet Joint Call 2016–2017 (DLR Förderkennzeichen 01DN19032 Tropical Andes Observatory—TAO).]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. 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. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). 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 to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. We notice that your supplementary figures are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. We note that Supplementary 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Supplementary 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. Additional Editor Comments : Dear author, I am pleased to advise you of the decision of PLOS ONE to accept your manuscript, pending edits as indicated by the reviewers below. In addressing the reviewers' comments, I suggest to add a sub-section of your paper, in the Methods section, named "Limitations of the study". In this sub-section, you could elaborate a bit on the negative comments that the reviewers provided. For example, I encourage you to take advantage of this section to explain limitations picked up by either reviewer towards the points below for which the reviewer considered that 'No', some publication criteria were not met. This would be an opportunity for you to shed some light on why the paper is sound even if some flaws might be detected by your audience. Also, please consider carefully and address comments highlighted at point 5 below, by each reviewer. I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript. Best regards, Umberto Baresi, PhD [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: 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: Authors manuscript is well written and in standard English. However there are several flaws on the design of data adquisition. Authors based their results on people registered for a workshop which was advertised on social media. Authors do not compare their results for instance with the data from Peruvian researchers with CTI vitae from CONCYTEC (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología) which is an open source about researcher publications and other information. Their sample is very small and not random. There is not any statistical analyses so it is difficult to apply their results to a more general population, much less the tropical Andes The criteria for their selection of registered researchers is not clear. Authors should have included the raw data as supplementary material. We do not know how many of the selected surveyed people work or are part of a university, national research institution, private research institution or are free researchers. Reviewer #2: Figure 2 does not specify which subplots correspond to A and B, and the legend of Figure 2B is small and challenging to read. In Figure 3, we depict the primary findings derived from the survey responses. Given the nature of the data, employing a Pareto chart would be more appropriate for effectively highlighting the main reasons across all topics." Exploring nationality-based response variations could provide valuable insights. Utilizing a chi-square test for analysis, non-significant results may suggest similarities among the countries, while significant differences would indicate distinctions despite their shared continent. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306189.r001
Revision 1
6 Jun 2024 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS Dear author, I am pleased to advise you of the decision of PLOS ONE to accept your manuscript, pending edits as indicated by the reviewers below. In addressing the reviewers' comments, I suggest to add a sub-section of your paper, in the Methods section, named "Limitations of the study". In this sub-section, you could elaborate a bit on the negative comments that the reviewers provided. For example, I encourage you to take advantage of this section to explain limitations picked up by either reviewer towards the points below for which the reviewer considered that 'No', some publication criteria were not met. This would be an opportunity for you to shed some light on why the paper is sound even if some flaws might be detected by your audience. Also, please consider carefully and address comments highlighted at point 5 below, by each reviewer. I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript. Best regards, Umberto Baresi, PhD RESPONSE: Thank you for informing us of PLOS ONE's decision to accept our manuscript, pending the revisions suggested by the reviewers. We are grateful for the opportunity to address their constructive feedback. In response to your recommendations, we have added a new sub-section titled "Limitations" within the Discussion section of the manuscript. This allowed us to thoughtfully address any limitations or concerns raised by the reviewers, while also making it clear why the overall study design and findings remain sound. We believe this addition will provide valuable context for the readers. Furthermore, we have carefully considered and incorporated the comments highlighted at point 5 by each reviewer. This has resulted in several improvements throughout the manuscript. Notably, we have revised the tables and converted them to figures to enhance clarity and visual impact. Additionally, we made other minor edits to improve the overall quality and coherence of the work, including thoughtfully refining the language to ensure a more inclusive tone. We have also updated the title of the paper to "Overcoming the Tropical Andes Publication Divide: Insights from Local Researchers on Challenges and Solutions." This new title better reflects the qualitative nature of our study and its focus on providing in-depth insights from researchers in lower publication countries in the Tropical Andes. We appreciate your insightful feedback and believe these changes significantly enhance the manuscript. Please let us know if there are any other areas that require further adjustment. Specific responses to reviewers comments are below. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes RESPONSE: We have addressed reviewer 1’s specific comments on this issue below. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No RESPONSE: We have not performed any statistical analyses as it is a quantitative study. We have addressed this in greater detail below.________________________________________ 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 RESPONSE: We have now included the anonymized dataset as supplementary material. ________________________________________ 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 NO RESPONSE NEEDED. ________________________________________ 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: Authors manuscript is well written and in standard English. However there are several flaws on the design of data adquisition. Authors based their results on people registered for a workshop which was advertised on social media. Authors do not compare their results for instance with the data from Peruvian researchers with CTI vitae from CONCYTEC (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología) which is an open source about researcher publications and other information. RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and critique of our study. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. While we acknowledge that this approach may introduce potential biases, it aligns with the specific objectives of our study. Our primary goal was not to obtain a strictly representative sample of the entire research community in the Tropical Andes region. Instead, we aimed to gather insights from researchers who were actively interested in and motivated to address the challenges associated with scientific publishing. The overwhelming response rate, with over 500 applicants expressing interest within a short period, demonstrates a substantial pool of researchers facing similar challenges and a widespread interest in the topic. We have now added this to the manuscript to make it clearer “The primary aim was to gather in-depth perspectives from those actively seeking support and guidance to overcome challenges in publishing their research.” Additionally, while comparing our results with databases such as CONCYTEC could provide additional perspectives, it was not within the scope or purpose of our study. Our research focused on gathering firsthand experiences and perspectives directly from researchers in the region through qualitative methods. Furthermore, the CONCYTEC database is specific to Peru, whereas our study aimed to capture insights from multiple countries within the Tropical Andes region, including Ecuador and Bolivia. However, we have now added a "Limitations of the Study" section in the Discussion which elaborates on this and other limitations. Their sample is very small and not random. RESPONSE: We disagree with the characterization of our sample as very small. Our study included over 500 respondents, which provides a substantial dataset for qualitative analysis. However, we acknowledge that the sample is not random. It comprises researchers who expressed interest in a workshop on publishing, thus representing those particularly motivated to address publishing challenges. We have now made this clearer in the manuscript: “The primary aim was to gather in-depth perspectives from those actively seeking support and guidance to overcome challenges in publishing their research.” However, we have now added a "Limitations of the Study" section in the Discussion, as suggested. This section elaborates on the limitations picked up by the reviewers, including the non-random nature of our sample and the lack of statistical analyses, and explains why the study is still valuable despite these limitations. There is not any statistical analyses so it is difficult to apply their results to a more general population, much less the tropical Andes RESPONSE: While we agree that our study does not include statistical analyses, this is because it is a qualitative study by design. The focus is on gathering detailed insights and experiences from researchers rather than producing generalizable statistical data. Qualitative research is particularly suited to exploring complex issues in depth, capturing the nuances of participants' experiences, and providing insights into their perspectives. Our approach allowed us to identify specific barriers and needs that researchers in the region face, which might be overlooked in quantitative studies. It is also important to clarify that our study does not aim to generalize findings to the entire Andes region. As stated in the introduction, our focus was on Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, countries that publish the least in Latin America. We dedicated an entire paragraph mentioning Colombia, which has a significantly higher publication rate, as an outlier in the region. Therefore, our goal was not to generalize to the entire Tropical Andes but to focus on the specific context and challenges within these three countries in particular. Nevertheless, we have now changed the title of the paper to "Overcoming the Tropical Andes Publication Divide: Insights from Local Researchers on Challenges and Solutions." This new title better reflects the qualitative nature of our study and its focus on providing in-depth insights from researchers in lower publication countries in the Tropical Andes, rather than attempting to produce generalizable statistical data. Additionally, we have made this more clear in the limitations section: “...the qualitative approach restricts the ability to statistically compare the findings with other studies or generalize the results to a broader population of the Tropical Andes. However, this approach aligns with the primary aim of gathering rich, contextual data from the targeted population of researchers in the Tropical Andes region who were actively seeking support for publishing their work. The intent of this study was to understand their specific perspectives and needs in overcoming barriers, rather than producing statistically representative findings. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights that can inform future research and targeted initiatives to address the publishing challenges faced by this subset of the research community.” The criteria for their selection of registered researchers is not clear. Authors should have included the raw data as supplementary material. We do not know how many of the selected surveyed people work or are part of a university, national research institution, private research institution or are free researchers. RESPONSE: We acknowledge that our initial explanation regarding the selection criteria for registered researchers may have lacked clarity. Our criteria aimed to assemble a diverse and experienced group of participants from various backgrounds, including academia, national research institutions, private research institutions, and independent researchers. Factors such as geographical origin, previous participation in relevant workshops, academic background, and expertise were carefully considered during the selection process. We have now provided a detailed explanation of our selection process in the Methodology section: “From the pool of over 500 registered applicants, we carefully selected 292 participants to take part in the workshop. The selection process focused on geographical origin (prioritizing the Tropical Andes region, particularly Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela), previous participation in related workshops and those on the ACCA mailing list (indicating relevant interest and engagement), age and academic background (excluding applicants 22 years old or younger, recent undergraduates within the last year and prioritizing those with postgraduate education), academic expertise (favoring ecology and conservation over communication and social sciences), English proficiency, and individuals with material ready for publishing. After thoroughly evaluating survey responses against these criteria, we were able to have a select group of participants with diverse expertise and experiences, enabling us to tailor the workshop to meet their needs and expectations.” We believe this detailed explanation enhances the transparency and understanding of our methodology for participant selection. Additionally, while we had detailed information from the registration survey, maintaining participant anonymity was fundamental to fostering open and honest responses in our study. However, the inherent flexibility of our study design, allowing participants to freely enter and exit the workshop during the three days, presented challenges in accurately attendance and survey completion. Despite our efforts to ensure a representative sample from the registration demographics, it was not possible to know which of the registered individuals ultimately participated in the workshop, adding complexity to our analysis. This fluidity made it difficult to link workplace data collected during registration to specific participants. Given these constraints, we removed the demography of the selected participants section, which was only two sentences, from the results as we cannot confidently associate this information with the general demography of the individuals who ultimately participated in the workshops. We have made this clear in the limitations section: “While this study offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by individuals in the Tropical Andes region regarding scientific publishing, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the registration survey was not originally designed for research purposes, but rather as a tool for selecting participants and designing the workshop. The open-ended nature of the questions required the data to be retrospectively categorized and coded, which may have introduced subjectivity. Additionally, while over half of the participants were selected for the workshop, the decision to maintain anonymity meant there is no record of attendance or way to link individual responses across the pre- and post-workshop surveys. Many participants could only attend for one day or leave before completing the surveys, further limiting the ability to capture complete data. This lack of identifying information also prevented exploration of potential differences in challenges based on factors like nationality, institution type, or career stage.” Lastly, in response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have now added the anonymized survey data as supplementary material, removing any identifying information such as names and emails. This addition enhances the transparency and accessibility of our data. Reviewer #2: Figure 2 does not specify which subplots correspond to A and B, and the legend of Figure 2B is small and challenging to read. RESPONSE: We have now removed this figure as explained in the previous comment. In Figure 3, we depict the primary findings derived from the survey responses. Given the nature of the data, employing a Pareto chart would be more appropriate for effectively highlighting the main reasons across all topics." RESPONSE: The Pareto chart was not used because each participant could provide multiple responses. This would result in a cumulative percentage exceeding 100%, rendering the Pareto chart unsuitable for accurately representing the data. Exploring nationality-based response variations could provide valuable insights. Utilizing a chi-square test for analysis, non-significant results may suggest similarities among the countries, while significant differences would indicate distinctions despite their shared continent. RESPONSE: This is a great idea. However, while we initially included nationality questions in the pre-selection survey, we overlooked their inclus Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosONE response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306189.r002
9 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Umberto Baresi, Editor PONE-D-24-01605R1Overcoming the Tropical Andes publication divide: insights from local researchers on challenges and solutionsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Valdez, 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 Jul 24 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 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, Umberto Baresi, 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: I would like to thank the author for the extra effort that they put into this manuscript. The reviewers' comments have been addressed, and the manuscript is almost ready for publication. Overall, the manuscript has greatly improved. There are minor edits required, before the paper can be accepted for publication. These are: - Check the number of figures, which is now not accurate. - Check the numbering of sections; the latest version does not show accurate numbering. Overall, I suggest a general check of the whole paper before resubmitting it in its final version. Thank you for submitting your research for publication in PLoS ONE. Kind regards Umberto Baresi - on behalf of the Editorial Board [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0306189.r003
Revision 2
10 Jun 2024 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS Dear author, I am pleased to advise you of the decision of PLOS ONE to accept your manuscript, pending edits as indicated by the reviewers below. In addressing the reviewers' comments, I suggest to add a sub-section of your paper, in the Methods section, named "Limitations of the study". In this sub-section, you could elaborate a bit on the negative comments that the reviewers provided. For example, I encourage you to take advantage of this section to explain limitations picked up by either reviewer towards the points below for which the reviewer considered that 'No', some publication criteria were not met. This would be an opportunity for you to shed some light on why the paper is sound even if some flaws might be detected by your audience. Also, please consider carefully and address comments highlighted at point 5 below, by each reviewer. I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript. Best regards, Umberto Baresi, PhD RESPONSE: Thank you for informing us of PLOS ONE's decision to accept our manuscript, pending the revisions suggested by the reviewers. We are grateful for the opportunity to address their constructive feedback. In response to your recommendations, we have added a new sub-section titled "Limitations" within the Discussion section of the manuscript. This allowed us to thoughtfully address any limitations or concerns raised by the reviewers, while also making it clear why the overall study design and findings remain sound. We believe this addition will provide valuable context for the readers. Furthermore, we have carefully considered and incorporated the comments highlighted at point 5 by each reviewer. This has resulted in several improvements throughout the manuscript. Notably, we have revised the tables and converted them to figures to enhance clarity and visual impact. Additionally, we made other minor edits to improve the overall quality and coherence of the work, including thoughtfully refining the language to ensure a more inclusive tone. We have also updated the title of the paper to "Overcoming the Tropical Andes Publication Divide: Insights from Local Researchers on Challenges and Solutions." This new title better reflects the qualitative nature of our study and its focus on providing in-depth insights from researchers in lower publication countries in the Tropical Andes. We appreciate your insightful feedback and believe these changes significantly enhance the manuscript. Please let us know if there are any other areas that require further adjustment. Specific responses to reviewers comments are below. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes RESPONSE: We have addressed reviewer 1’s specific comments on this issue below. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No RESPONSE: We have not performed any statistical analyses as it is a quantitative study. We have addressed this in greater detail below.________________________________________ 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 RESPONSE: We have now included the anonymized dataset as supplementary material. ________________________________________ 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 NO RESPONSE NEEDED. ________________________________________ 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: Authors manuscript is well written and in standard English. However there are several flaws on the design of data adquisition. Authors based their results on people registered for a workshop which was advertised on social media. Authors do not compare their results for instance with the data from Peruvian researchers with CTI vitae from CONCYTEC (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología) which is an open source about researcher publications and other information. RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and critique of our study. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. While we acknowledge that this approach may introduce potential biases, it aligns with the specific objectives of our study. Our primary goal was not to obtain a strictly representative sample of the entire research community in the Tropical Andes region. Instead, we aimed to gather insights from researchers who were actively interested in and motivated to address the challenges associated with scientific publishing. The overwhelming response rate, with over 500 applicants expressing interest within a short period, demonstrates a substantial pool of researchers facing similar challenges and a widespread interest in the topic. We have now added this to the manuscript to make it clearer “The primary aim was to gather in-depth perspectives from those actively seeking support and guidance to overcome challenges in publishing their research.” Additionally, while comparing our results with databases such as CONCYTEC could provide additional perspectives, it was not within the scope or purpose of our study. Our research focused on gathering firsthand experiences and perspectives directly from researchers in the region through qualitative methods. Furthermore, the CONCYTEC database is specific to Peru, whereas our study aimed to capture insights from multiple countries within the Tropical Andes region, including Ecuador and Bolivia. However, we have now added a "Limitations of the Study" section in the Discussion which elaborates on this and other limitations. Their sample is very small and not random. RESPONSE: We disagree with the characterization of our sample as very small. Our study included over 500 respondents, which provides a substantial dataset for qualitative analysis. However, we acknowledge that the sample is not random. It comprises researchers who expressed interest in a workshop on publishing, thus representing those particularly motivated to address publishing challenges. We have now made this clearer in the manuscript: “The primary aim was to gather in-depth perspectives from those actively seeking support and guidance to overcome challenges in publishing their research.” However, we have now added a "Limitations of the Study" section in the Discussion, as suggested. This section elaborates on the limitations picked up by the reviewers, including the non-random nature of our sample and the lack of statistical analyses, and explains why the study is still valuable despite these limitations. There is not any statistical analyses so it is difficult to apply their results to a more general population, much less the tropical Andes RESPONSE: While we agree that our study does not include statistical analyses, this is because it is a qualitative study by design. The focus is on gathering detailed insights and experiences from researchers rather than producing generalizable statistical data. Qualitative research is particularly suited to exploring complex issues in depth, capturing the nuances of participants' experiences, and providing insights into their perspectives. Our approach allowed us to identify specific barriers and needs that researchers in the region face, which might be overlooked in quantitative studies. It is also important to clarify that our study does not aim to generalize findings to the entire Andes region. As stated in the introduction, our focus was on Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, countries that publish the least in Latin America. We dedicated an entire paragraph mentioning Colombia, which has a significantly higher publication rate, as an outlier in the region. Therefore, our goal was not to generalize to the entire Tropical Andes but to focus on the specific context and challenges within these three countries in particular. Nevertheless, we have now changed the title of the paper to "Overcoming the Tropical Andes Publication Divide: Insights from Local Researchers on Challenges and Solutions." This new title better reflects the qualitative nature of our study and its focus on providing in-depth insights from researchers in lower publication countries in the Tropical Andes, rather than attempting to produce generalizable statistical data. Additionally, we have made this more clear in the limitations section: “...the qualitative approach restricts the ability to statistically compare the findings with other studies or generalize the results to a broader population of the Tropical Andes. However, this approach aligns with the primary aim of gathering rich, contextual data from the targeted population of researchers in the Tropical Andes region who were actively seeking support for publishing their work. The intent of this study was to understand their specific perspectives and needs in overcoming barriers, rather than producing statistically representative findings. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights that can inform future research and targeted initiatives to address the publishing challenges faced by this subset of the research community.” The criteria for their selection of registered researchers is not clear. Authors should have included the raw data as supplementary material. We do not know how many of the selected surveyed people work or are part of a university, national research institution, private research institution or are free researchers. RESPONSE: We acknowledge that our initial explanation regarding the selection criteria for registered researchers may have lacked clarity. Our criteria aimed to assemble a diverse and experienced group of participants from various backgrounds, including academia, national research institutions, private research institutions, and independent researchers. Factors such as geographical origin, previous participation in relevant workshops, academic background, and expertise were carefully considered during the selection process. We have now provided a detailed explanation of our selection process in the Methodology section: “From the pool of over 500 registered applicants, we carefully selected 292 participants to take part in the workshop. The selection process focused on geographical origin (prioritizing the Tropical Andes region, particularly Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela), previous participation in related workshops and those on the ACCA mailing list (indicating relevant interest and engagement), age and academic background (excluding applicants 22 years old or younger, recent undergraduates within the last year and prioritizing those with postgraduate education), academic expertise (favoring ecology and conservation over communication and social sciences), English proficiency, and individuals with material ready for publishing. After thoroughly evaluating survey responses against these criteria, we were able to have a select group of participants with diverse expertise and experiences, enabling us to tailor the workshop to meet their needs and expectations.” We believe this detailed explanation enhances the transparency and understanding of our methodology for participant selection. Additionally, while we had detailed information from the registration survey, maintaining participant anonymity was fundamental to fostering open and honest responses in our study. However, the inherent flexibility of our study design, allowing participants to freely enter and exit the workshop during the three days, presented challenges in accurately attendance and survey completion. Despite our efforts to ensure a representative sample from the registration demographics, it was not possible to know which of the registered individuals ultimately participated in the workshop, adding complexity to our analysis. This fluidity made it difficult to link workplace data collected during registration to specific participants. Given these constraints, we removed the demography of the selected participants section, which was only two sentences, from the results as we cannot confidently associate this information with the general demography of the individuals who ultimately participated in the workshops. We have made this clear in the limitations section: “While this study offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by individuals in the Tropical Andes region regarding scientific publishing, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the registration survey was not originally designed for research purposes, but rather as a tool for selecting participants and designing the workshop. The open-ended nature of the questions required the data to be retrospectively categorized and coded, which may have introduced subjectivity. Additionally, while over half of the participants were selected for the workshop, the decision to maintain anonymity meant there is no record of attendance or way to link individual responses across the pre- and post-workshop surveys. Many participants could only attend for one day or leave before completing the surveys, further limiting the ability to capture complete data. This lack of identifying information also prevented exploration of potential differences in challenges based on factors like nationality, institution type, or career stage.” Lastly, in response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have now added the anonymized survey data as supplementary material, removing any identifying information such as names and emails. This addition enhances the transparency and accessibility of our data. Reviewer #2: Figure 2 does not specify which subplots correspond to A and B, and the legend of Figure 2B is small and challenging to read. RESPONSE: We have now removed this figure as explained in the previous comment. In Figure 3, we depict the primary findings derived from the survey responses. Given the nature of the data, employing a Pareto chart would be more appropriate for effectively highlighting the main reasons across all topics." RESPONSE: The Pareto chart was not used because each participant could provide multiple responses. This would result in a cumulative percentage exceeding 100%, rendering the Pareto chart unsuitable for accurately representing the data. Exploring nationality-based response variations could provide valuable insights. Utilizing a chi-square test for analysis, non-significant results may suggest similarities among the countries, while significant differences would indicate distinctions despite their shared continent. RESPONSE: This is a great idea. However, while we initially included nationality questions in the pre-selection survey, we overlooked their inclus Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosONE response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306189.r004
13 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Umberto Baresi, Editor Overcoming the Tropical Andes publication divide: insights from local researchers on challenges and solutions PONE-D-24-01605R2 Dear Dr. Valdez, 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, Umberto Baresi, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306189.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Umberto Baresi, Editor PONE-D-24-01605R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Valdez, 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. Umberto Baresi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306189.r006

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 .