Problem-solving ability and future time perspective among the Chinese nursing interns: The mediating role of future work self

Zhangyi Wang; Yue Zhu; Xiaoping Zhan; Tingrui Wang; Xiaochun Tang; Liping Li; Tao Su; Huifang Zhou; Li Liu; Lamei Chen; Xiaoli Pang; Jiaofeng Peng; Yan Wang; Li Yang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308669

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 6, 2024
14 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor PONE-D-24-16452Correlation between problem-solving ability and future time perspective among the Chinese nursing interns: The mediating role of future work selfPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 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, Mukhtiar Baig, 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [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: Yes ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No 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 study titled "Correlation between problem-solving ability and future time perspective among the Chinese nursing interns: The mediating role of future work self" aims to explore correlations among problem-solving ability, future time perspective, and future work self of Chinese nursing interns, and The study was conducted using a descriptive, cross-sectional design in eight hospitals China. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the experiences of nursing interns and highlights the importance of factors such as problem-solving ability and future time perspective. However, it is worth noting that the study has a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships. Further longitudinal research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the relationships identified in this study. Furthermore, the study relies on self-report measures from 15 tertiary grade-A hospitals in China. However, the author did not describe the geographical location of the 15 hospitals in detail, so I have reason to doubt whether this study can represent the whole situation in China. Because the geographic location can bias the results. In addition, there are some problems in the format and language of the article, please modify it according to the magazine guide.1. The background part needs to be streamlined and too long. It does not briefly summarize the current situation of the future time insight and problem solving ability of Chinese interns. It is just a simple description, which I think is not desirable.2. Some of the expressions of the article are a little stiff, and I think the author needs to modify the language. Reviewer #2: The definition of "future time perspective" is not outlined at the beginning of the introduction section; it would be best to include it in the beginning to make reading it easier. You specified that "questionnaires with obvious contradictory answers were excluded"; I believe that detailing the criteria would add to the robustness of the methodology. ****** 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.0308669.r001
Revision 1
21 Jun 2024 Author Response Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-16452 R1 Title: Problem-solving ability and future time perspective among the Chinese nursing interns: The mediating role of future work self June 21th, 2024 Dear academic editor and reviewers: We would like to thank you for your efforts in reviewing our revised manuscript entitled “Problem-solving ability and future time perspective among the Chinese nursing interns: The mediating role of future work self”, and providing many helpful comments and suggestions, which will all prove invaluable in the revision and improvement of our paper, as well as in guiding our research in the future. According to your nice suggestions, we have studied your comments point-by-point, and have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, and all the changes have been marked in red in the revised draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. In order for reviewers and readers to better understand and read, we invited two nursing professors whose mother tongue is English and KetengEdit (www.ketengedit.com) to polish and revise the language of our article. All authors have approved the response letter and the revised version of the manuscript. Responds to the reviewers’ comments point-by-point: Response to reviewer # 1: Dear reviewer # 1, we appreciate it very much for these good suggestion. We are well aware that there are still some shortcomings in the manuscript. Therefore, in accordance with your suggestions, we have made the following revisions to our manuscript: Q1: “However, it is worth noting that the study has a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships. Further longitudinal research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the relationships identified in this study.” Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, for this suggestion, we are sorry and want to explain that due to the limitation of project funds, time and research conditions, so far, our research group has not carried out longitudinal research, which is indeed a major deficiency of this study, and we have written it in the section of “5.4. Strengths and limitations”, that is “Second, the study's cross-sectional design may restrict the ability to establish causal relationships. Further longitudinal research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the relationships identified in this study.” Thus, longitudinal research will continue to be carried out to better explore the mechanism in the future. And all the changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. We hope you can understand and be generous. Q2: “Furthermore, the study relies on self-report measures from 15 tertiary grade-A hospitals in China. However, the author did not describe the geographical location of the 15 hospitals in detail, so I have reason to doubt whether this study can represent the whole situation in China. Because the geographic location can bias the results.” Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, for this suggestion, we have made some major revisions, that is: We have added the cities and geographical regions where 15 tertiary grade-A hospitals are located, that is “Convenience sampling was used to recruit nursing interns from 15 tertiary grade-A hospitals across six cities in China: Tianjin and Shijiazhuang in the north, and Guiyang, Changsha, Chenzhou, and Hengyang in the south. The recruitment period was from May 8, 2023, to February 15, 2024.” This may result in unrepresentative samples and potentially biased, non-generalizable, or limited findings. Future research should employ random, multi-center sampling with a larger sample size to address this limitation, which is also one of the limitations of this study, and it is also described in the section of “5.4. Strengths and limitations”. And all the changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. We hope you can understand and be generous. Q3: “In addition, there are some problems in the format and language of the article, please modify it according to the magazine guide. 1. The background part needs to be streamlined and too long. It does not briefly summarize the current situation of the future time insight and problem solving ability of Chinese interns. It is just a simple description, which I think is not desirable. 2. Some of the expressions of the article are a little stiff, and I think the author needs to modify the language.” Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, for this suggestion, we have made some revisions, that is: (1) We have modified the format and language according to the magazine guide. In order for reviewers and readers to better understand and read, we invited two nursing professors whose mother tongue is English and KetengEdit (www.ketengedit.com) to polish and revise the language of our article. (2) We have simplified and revised the “Introduction” and combed the framework, and summarized and described the current situation of the problem-solving ability, future time perspective, future work self in the corresponding section of the “1.1. Literature review”. In addition, a subtitle is added to each part of the literature review to make it easier to read and understand, that is : “Future time perspective can positively predict problem-solving ability.” “Future work self is a positive predictor of problem-solving ability.” “Future work self may play a mediating role between problem-solving ability and future time perspective.” For other language and content issues of the article, we have also made unified revisions. And all the changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. We hope you can understand and be generous. Response to reviewer # 2: Dear reviewer # 2, we appreciate it very much for these good suggestion. We are well aware that there are still some shortcomings in the manuscript. Therefore, in accordance with your suggestions, we have made the following revisions to our manuscript: Q1: “The definition of “future time perspective” is not outlined at the beginning of the introduction section; it would be best to include it in the beginning to make reading it easier.” Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, for this suggestion, we have made some revisions, that is: We have added the definition of “future time perspective” and “future work self ” in the first and second paragraph in the section of the “1.1. Literature review”, that is “Future time perspective refers to an individual's self-perception, emotional experience, and direction of action regarding their potential for development, ultimately driving the individual to behave in ways that align with their future short- or long-term goals”. We also want to explain that the first few paragraphs in the section of the “1. Introduction” are the study background, mainly focusing on the significance and importance of problem-solving ability of the nursing interns and the lack of relevant research methods and contents at present. Therefore, the relationships and mediating role among problem-solving ability, future time perspective, and future work self of the Chinese nursing will be described in detail in the section of the “1.1. Literature review”. And the section “1.1. Literature review” is one of the contents of section “1. Introduction”. And all the changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. We hope you can understand and be generous. Q2: “You specified that "questionnaires with obvious contradictory answers were excluded"; I believe that detailing the criteria would add to the robustness of the methodology.” Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we also believe that detailing the criteria would add to the robustness of the methodology. Thus, for this suggestion, we have made some major revisions, that is: In the section of the “3.4. Data collection”, we have detailed the criteria, that is “(4) questionnaires with obviously contradictory answers were excluded (e.g., a 19-year-old with a master's degree, which is implausible for the nursing profession in China)” And all the changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. We hope you can understand and be generous. Last but not least, we have studied your comments point by point, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes in detail but marked in red in the revised paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. All authors have approved the response letter and the revised version of the manuscript. And due to our writing ability, understanding and logic are limited and we look forward to your generosity. Due to the time limit of our project and the need to employ professional title, and this paper is very important to our team, so we sincerely hope that you can recommend our revised version of the manuscript to accept for publication in the journal Plos One as soon as possible. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon in due course. Best regards, Zhangyi Wang, Master's degree, Nurse Practitioner, 283537548@qq.com, Nursing Department, Affiliated Hengyang Hospital of Hunan Normal University & Hengyang Central Hospital, Hengyang, Hunan Province, 421001, China. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: S1 File. Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308669.r002
25 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor Problem-solving ability and future time perspective among the Chinese nursing interns: The mediating role of future work self PONE-D-24-16452R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Mukhtiar Baig, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308669.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mukhtiar Baig, Editor PONE-D-24-16452R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 Mukhtiar Baig Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308669.r004

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 .