PONE-D-23-39952Strengthening research networks: insights from a nationwide clinical research network in BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fonseca,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I am happy to send you the Reviewer Comments and apologize again for the time in review.  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 19 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The article presents a relevant topic and makes a contribution to network analysis. The materials and methods section requires revision, as the order is not in a logical chronology. It is suggested to start with the study design, participants, construction of the questionnaire, dimensions analysis and forms of analysis.

Reviewer #2: General comments

This paper assessing a clinical research network in Brazil is interesting, given the importance to describe and evaluate such networks. Parts of the analyses are mainly of local/regional interest, while others are generalizable. I believe, however, that there is room for improvement in the context description and discussion to add value for readers in other settings.

Specific comments for revision

a) Major

Abstract: Number of respondents and response rate is not presented in the abstract

Abstract & introduction: I lack a clearly formulated aim, both in the abstract and in the end of the introduction section. The message is there, but it could be described more clear, also potentially including a few specific research questions.

Introduction: It could be further stressed how this network benefits both research and healthcare. It would also be valuable with more comparisons with similar networks in other settings. What are the key features of this network and how does it differ from others regarding management, staffing, aims, structure, and the way how it integrates academy with clinical care.

Introduction: I is claimed that they started some ten years ago, and such networks take time to develop. It would be valuable to get some description of the time line, and important milestones.

Methods :Page 9-10 incl Fig 2. This description of the population is very valuable but should come earlier, preferably first in the methods section directly as setting or population. It is also possible to place it in the introduction together with a more comprehensive description of the network.

Methods/results: No statistical measure of uncertainty has been applied, e.g. adding confidence intervals on proportions and comparisons. Overall I cant see that many comparisons between groups. Perhaps this is wise given the small numbers, but it might have been interesting to see differences in responses based on respondent categories (with an appropriate statistical test)

Results: The initial sentence “questionnaire was accessed by”, does it mean that this number was invited?

Results: There are many illustrations – in total 6 figures and 5 tables. I don’t know the maximum allowed number by the journal, but suggest some could be moved to appendices

Discussion: The structure could be improved through adding a first sharp paragraph about the key findings, then more integration between the assessment of own findings in relation to others. Overall, the generalizability and and comparisons with what is known in the scientific literature should be emphasized more to increase the value for the global scientific community.

Discussion: There is a lack of a Strengths and weaknesses section, which is a necessary part of a discussion.

b) Minor

There are no subheadings in Abstract (Intro, Aim, Methods, Result, Discussion). I don’t know whether it is required by the journal or not, but think it would add value.

Texts: Some subheaders have different sizes. There is also some unnecessary repetition in the text (e.g. the response rate that comes twice) and quite a lot of numbers presented in double both in a table and in the free text. The results and discussion parts could therefore be revised and shortened slightly. I also recommend some statements to be modified to emphasize they are perceived by responders.

Table 5 –Abbreviations should be explained in footer

**********

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.

Strengthening research networks: insights from a clinical research network in Brazil

PONE-D-23-39952R1

Dear Dr. Fonseca,

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,

Claudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: