Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

Joeri K. Tijdink; Govert Valkenburg; Sarah de Rijcke; Guus Dix

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307814

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 30, 2023
6 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Julian D. Cortes, Editor PONE-D-23-25545Title: Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: a focus group studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tijdink, 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. ==============================Dear author/s, thanks for submitting your work to PLoS ONE , I contrasted the core sections of your work with our seven criteria for publication and I consider you could work on the following points before sending it for review: The study presents the results of original research Consider enrich the introduction/review with additional literature/evidence on the topic. This, in order to grownd the results and their discussion. For instance, authors could assess and potentially include the following studies to their literature: Fochler, M., Felt, U., & Müller, R. (2016). Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva, 54(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9292-y Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Nane, G. F., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2023). Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAC049 Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail Consider expand the details on sub-section “Analysis.” The Technique of “Inductive content analysis” just mentioned, however, if it is the main technique to analyze the transcripts, at least, I assume, there are general steps to follow and explain (e.g., 1. Decide the level of analysis: word, word sense, phrase, sentence, themes; 2. Decide how various concepts to code for: develop a pre-defined or interactive set of categories or concepts. Decide either: A. to allow flexibility to add categories through the coding process, or B. to stick with the pre-defined set of categories; 3. Decide whether to code for existence or frequency of a concept. The decision changes the coding process; 4. Decide on how you will distinguish among concepts; 5. Develop rules for coding your texts; 6. Decide what to do with irrelevant information: should this be ignored (e.g. common English words like “the” and “and”), or used to reexamine the coding scheme in the case that it would add to the outcome of coding?; 7. Code the text [https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis]). The whole section on the description and analysis of Table 1, should be part of the “Method” section, not “Results.” The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability Consider expand on the reliability and validity of the methods and results got by using content analysis (https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis): - Reliability (Stability: the tendency for coders to consistently re-code the same data in the same way over a period of time; Reproducibility: tendency for a group of coders to classify categories membership in the same way; Accuracy: extent to which the classification of text corresponds to a standard or norm statistically), and - Validity (Closeness of categories: this can be achieved by utilizing multiple classifiers to arrive at an agreed upon definition of each specific category. Using multiple classifiers, a concept category that may be an explicit variable can be broadened to include synonyms or implicit variables; Conclusions: What level of implication is allowable? Do conclusions correctly follow the data? Are results explainable by other phenomena? This becomes especially problematic when using computer software for analysis and distinguishing between synonyms. For example, the word “mine,” variously denotes a personal pronoun, an explosive device, and a deep hole in the ground from which ore is extracted. Software can obtain an accurate count of that word’s occurrence and frequency, but not be able to produce an accurate accounting of the meaning inherent in each particular usage. This problem could throw off one’s results and make any conclusion invalid; Generalizability of the results to a theory: dependent on the clear definitions of concept categories, how they are determined and how reliable they are at measuring the idea one is seeking to measure. Generalizability parallels reliability as much of it depends on the three criteria for reliability.) The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English Some readers might not understand colloquialism used in the manuscript, such as “We thus should not throw the baby out with the bath water.” Try to avoid them. I hope you can incorporate the above suggestions to improve your already valuable work before sending it to review. Sincerely, Julián D. Cortés Associate Editor============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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, Julian D. Cortes 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. 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. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 8. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear author/s, thanks for submitting your work to PLoS ONE , I contrasted the core sections of your work with our seven criteria for publication and I consider you could work on the following points before sending it for review: The study presents the results of original research Consider enrich the introduction/review with additional literature/evidence on the topic. This, in order to grownd the results and their discussion. For instance, authors could assess and potentially include the following studies to their literature: Fochler, M., Felt, U., & Müller, R. (2016). Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva, 54(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9292-y Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Nane, G. F., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2023). Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAC049 Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail Consider expand the details on sub-section “Analysis.” The Technique of “Inductive content analysis” just mentioned, however, if it is the main technique to analyze the transcripts, at least, I assume, there are general steps to follow and explain (e.g., 1. Decide the level of analysis: word, word sense, phrase, sentence, themes; 2. Decide how various concepts to code for: develop a pre-defined or interactive set of categories or concepts. Decide either: A. to allow flexibility to add categories through the coding process, or B. to stick with the pre-defined set of categories; 3. Decide whether to code for existence or frequency of a concept. The decision changes the coding process; 4. Decide on how you will distinguish among concepts; 5. Develop rules for coding your texts; 6. Decide what to do with irrelevant information: should this be ignored (e.g. common English words like “the” and “and”), or used to reexamine the coding scheme in the case that it would add to the outcome of coding?; 7. Code the text [https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis]). The whole section on the description and analysis of Table 1, should be part of the “Method” section, not “Results.” The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability Consider expand on the reliability and validity of the methods and results got by using content analysis (https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis): - Reliability (Stability: the tendency for coders to consistently re-code the same data in the same way over a period of time; Reproducibility: tendency for a group of coders to classify categories membership in the same way; Accuracy: extent to which the classification of text corresponds to a standard or norm statistically), and - Validity (Closeness of categories: this can be achieved by utilizing multiple classifiers to arrive at an agreed upon definition of each specific category. Using multiple classifiers, a concept category that may be an explicit variable can be broadened to include synonyms or implicit variables; Conclusions: What level of implication is allowable? Do conclusions correctly follow the data? Are results explainable by other phenomena? This becomes especially problematic when using computer software for analysis and distinguishing between synonyms. For example, the word “mine,” variously denotes a personal pronoun, an explosive device, and a deep hole in the ground from which ore is extracted. Software can obtain an accurate count of that word’s occurrence and frequency, but not be able to produce an accurate accounting of the meaning inherent in each particular usage. This problem could throw off one’s results and make any conclusion invalid; Generalizability of the results to a theory: dependent on the clear definitions of concept categories, how they are determined and how reliable they are at measuring the idea one is seeking to measure. Generalizability parallels reliability as much of it depends on the three criteria for reliability.) The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English Some readers might not understand colloquialism used in the manuscript, such as “We thus should not throw the baby out with the bath water.” Try to avoid them. I hope you can incorporate the above suggestions to improve your already valuable work before sending it to review. Sincerely, Julián D. Cortés Associate Editor [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.0307814.r001
Revision 1
22 Nov 2023 Author Response Dear Prof. Cortés, Thank you for your review of our article, recently submitted to PLoS One. We have read it with interest and below you will find answers in italics to the points you have raised in a point by point fashion. If we have changed the text, we indicate this and write this text in blue. This letter is also included in the attached files. Thanks again for your valuable feedback. We look forward to hear from you. Warm regards, also on behalf of the authors. Joeri Tijdink, MD PhD Amsterdam Editor: I contrasted the core sections of your work with our seven criteria for publication and I consider you could work on the following points before sending it for review: 1. The study presents the results of original research Consider enrich the introduction/review with additional literature/evidence on the topic. This, in order to grownd the results and their discussion. For instance, authors could assess and potentially include the following studies to their literature: Fochler, M., Felt, U., & Müller, R. (2016). Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva, 54(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9292-y Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Nane, G. F., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2023). Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAC049 Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We are happy you brought up these references as they have inspired us in the debate on evaluation and academic performance. We have expanded the introduction section with the two references and have added the following text to the introduction. We now write: “One study alluded to this by emphasizing researchers perceptions of valuation regimes beyond traditional research activities and how current systems and criteria can influence behavior and choices regarding the activities they prioritize (14,15). This is also influenced by intense competition can narrow the range of activities and goals that scientists pursue due to the limited set of criteria and values by which scientists are judged and that reevaluating the criteria in academia is necessary to create a healthier and more sustainable research culture (15)”. 2. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail Consider expand the details on sub-section “Analysis.” The Technique of “Inductive content analysis” just mentioned, however, if it is the main technique to analyze the transcripts, at least, I assume, there are general steps to follow and explain (e.g., 1. Decide the level of analysis: word, word sense, phrase, sentence, themes; 2. Decide how various concepts to code for: develop a pre-defined or interactive set of categories or concepts. Decide either: A. to allow flexibility to add categories through the coding process, or B. to stick with the pre-defined set of categories; 3. Decide whether to code for existence or frequency of a concept. The decision changes the coding process; 4. Decide on how you will distinguish among concepts; 5. Develop rules for coding your texts; 6. Decide what to do with irrelevant information: should this be ignored (e.g. common English words like “the” and “and”), or used to reexamine the coding scheme in the case that it would add to the outcome of coding?; 7. Code the text [https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis]). The whole section on the description and analysis of Table 1, should be part of the “Method” section, not “Results.” Answer: Thanks for this. We have extended our description of the inductive content analysis in the manuscript. Furthermore, we have moved the ‘descriptive information’ including table 1 to the methods section. We now write in the methods section under analysis on page 7: “We used inductive content analysis for the analysis of the transcripts of the focus groups and took the following steps in this process. First we coded the data on a phrase level. Next, we established a tentative set of themes to analyze the selected phrases, while allowing for flexibility to revise and update these themes during the process, if necessary. Then we analyzed the different themes and summarized these themes. This process of inductive content analysis helps us to understand complex discussions and bring them back to meaningful themes (16)”. 3. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability Consider expand on the reliability and validity of the methods and results got by using content analysis (https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis): - Reliability (Stability: the tendency for coders to consistently re-code the same data in the same way over a period of time; Reproducibility: tendency for a group of coders to classify categories membership in the same way; Accuracy: extent to which the classification of text corresponds to a standard or norm statistically), and - Validity (Closeness of categories: this can be achieved by utilizing multiple classifiers to arrive at an agreed upon definition of each specific category. Using multiple classifiers, a concept category that may be an explicit variable can be broadened to include synonyms or implicit variables; Conclusions: What level of implication is allowable? Do conclusions correctly follow the data? Are results explainable by other phenomena? This becomes especially problematic when using computer software for analysis and distinguishing between synonyms. For example, the word “mine,” variously denotes a personal pronoun, an explosive device, and a deep hole in the ground from which ore is extracted. Software can obtain an accurate count of that word’s occurrence and frequency, but not be able to produce an accurate accounting of the meaning inherent in each particular usage. This problem could throw off one’s results and make any conclusion invalid; Generalizability of the results to a theory: dependent on the clear definitions of concept categories, how they are determined and how reliable they are at measuring the idea one is seeking to measure. Generalizability parallels reliability as much of it depends on the three criteria for reliability.) Answers: Thank you. Personally, I like this a lot to include this in an article as it tells us more about the quality and reproducibility of our work. We have added these considerations to the discussion section in the interpretation of the data. We have added the following text: “Third, it is good to reflect on both reliability and validity of our findings. Considering the reproducibility of our work, two persons from our research team coded and analyzed the transcripts to assure that we found and classified similar categories and themes. Considering the validity, JT and GD have discussed the content of the themes in more detail on several occasions to assure that our categorization is similar and explicit. Moreover, we have discussed generalizability and reflect on this in the limitation section of this article.” 4. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English Some readers might not understand colloquialism used in the manuscript, such as “We thus should not throw the baby out with the bath water.” Try to avoid them. Answer: Thank you. We have changed this sentence and we now write in the discussion section: “We thus should exercise caution to avoid discarding valuable elements or aspects when making comprehensive changes or judgments, as prematurely eliminating the essential along with the dispensable may lead to unintended consequences.” https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.r002
13 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Julian D. Cortes, Editor PONE-D-23-25545R1Title: Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: a focus group studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tijdink, 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. ============================== Dear authors, In view of the referees’ feedback and my own reading of your paper, we invite you to address all issues noted below, most of which are relatively minor in nature, but nonetheless essential. In particular, a few adjustments in literature review; counts/quantification of the focus group themes; and more discussion rooted in existing reward model structure. We look forward to your revised version. Sincerely, Julián D. Cortés============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Julian D. Cortes 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Perhaps a table with a summary of results could help to point out the main themes/categories/solutions based on the results Reviewer #2: It was a pleasure reading this important work with fascinating findings. There are only a few items to address to strengthen the manuscript for publication. (1) An expanded literature review; (2) Counts/quantification of the focus group themes (3) More discussion rooted in existing reward model structure (4) Limitations of study improved (1) The literature could include its own section to connect to existing work in this area. Journal of Research Administration, Chronicle of Higher Ed, and others have research to give more context to scholarly communication, misconduct statistics, team science, and any additional context would help connect this work to the existing body of knowledge related to P&T. (2) The direct quotes and themes are very good, but having counts of mentions or number of participants that represented/agreed with a theme or comment would give more detail to readers about how prevalent the sentiments were. Perhaps, even a table of themes and examples of each would present this in a more readable manner than the paragraphs of text. (3) CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) may be an easy inclusion to explain how roles on teams do get credit now in some fields on large research teams. There are other metrics you can cite to connect the discussion and recommendations to current practices across the hard sciences. The entire discussion section would benefit from the authors adding more ideas and recommendations. What there is great, I just would like to see more. (4) The limitations of the study are clear, but having a stand alone section of the limitations and ways to address them in future research would increase readability. Towards the end of that section a sentence just starts "Since we" and then is blank... so what should be there? Overall, more subheadings and more concise writing style would also help. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Bradley Wade Bishop ******** [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.0307814.r003
Revision 2
27 Jun 2024 Author Response See our response in the cover letter https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.r004
12 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Julian D. Cortes, Editor Title: Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: a focus group study PONE-D-23-25545R2 Dear Dr. Tijdink, 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, Julian D. Cortes Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.r005
Formally Accepted
24 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Julian D. Cortes, Editor PONE-D-23-25545R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tijdink, 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 Professor Julian D. Cortes Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.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 .