PONE-D-23-41751Examining interviewer bias in medical school admissions: The interplay between applicant and interviewer gender and its effects on interview outcomesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsikas,

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.

==============================

This manuscript will provide a valuable contribution to the literature.

Minor revisions, as suggested by the two reviewers, are required. I believe this round of minor revisions will increase the quality of the publication.

I encourage the authors to address the comments provided by the two reviewers, and I thank you for publishing your research on OLOS One. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 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:

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. For studies reporting research involving human participants, PLOS ONE requires authors to confirm that this specific study was reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (ethics committee) before the study began. Please provide the specific name of the ethics committee/IRB that approved your study, or explain why you did not seek approval in this case.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data and code can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. 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. 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: I Don't Know

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: Thanks for the interesting data about a relevant topic. The reader need some important informations in the methods section and also the discussion would benefit from some more thoughs.

Language

I am not a native speaker myself, but I had the impression, that the language could be improved. E.g. “Motivated by the described shortcomings of personal interviews…,” or: Or (page 15, line 4): ….”Missing for some years are data on ratings in the….” sounds very “German”. Same with “..One often-used instrument is the Multiple Mini-Interview….” Better: a frequently used instrument as the MMI….”. Please check the language once more through the whole paper.

Please correct also upper and lower case letters (e.g. in methods: “Results chapter”)

Abstract

Ok, if no subheadings are needed

Introduction

Page 10, 3 paragraph: delete the first word “in” or “has been found that….”

Same paragraph: what sort of “test” is meant here: “……in favor of the latter males scored higher in the test” ? interviews? MMI? Cognitive or psychometric tests?

Same paragraph: “For the admission process at Brown University, [28] showed that…” please add authors name or “it was shown, that….”.

Research objectives:

delete the sentence: “(as discussed in the previous section)”

Some sentences can moved into the discussion

e.g.: into “strength”: data from 15 years,

or into “limitations”: one-site study, no detailed information about rating

Methods

In the methods-section, several questions are not answered so far:

Did the interviewers know the candidate's A-level grades beforehand? Or other information about the candidates?

What was the training like when it took place?

Which professional groups did the interviewers come from?

How many minutes did each interview last?

What is the maximum number of consecutive interviews per day/per session? Please discuss later possible exhaustion after a long periods as it is known from OSCES or exams.

Were all candidates binary or were some divers?

Why data collection ended in 2019?

Were the intervievers informed about the candidates success later?

Results

good

Discussion

Please add subheadings.

P 20., last line: something missing? The reader expects a quotation („Goldberg claims…“).

How is he distribution between male and female students at MHH in the years of study? Perhaps female interviewers had a sort of “hidden agenda” to increase the proportion of male students?

Please add some ideas about further research

No conclusion

Literature

Ok

Graphs/tables

good

Reviewer #2: In this study “Examining interviewer bias in medical school admissions: The interplay between applicant and interviewer gender and its effects on interview outcomes” , the authors investigate gender-related interviewer bias in medical school admission interviews using data from 5,200 individuals who participated in selection interviews between 2006 and 2019.

I appreciate the time and effort spent by the authors on this important contribution to the literature. It is a study that will shed light on future research in this field. However, I suggest some changes before publication. These are minor technical issues that have come to my attention. The suggestions are listed below.

1. On Page 2, there is no need for "see reviews by" in the last sentence. Sources [1-4] are already mentioned. Please delete this statement.

2. In the third sentence on Page 3, there is no need for "reviews by" and "See also". Instead, list the sources side by side.

3. All of the following sources are written separately from each other. Please write them

[10] [2],

[14] [17-18]

[31-32] [16],

[44-45] [21].

4. On page 4, p. 1440, is this necessary? it is already referenced. This style of referencing is not customary for articles, nor is it necessary.

5. “For a start, we briefly present previous evidence on gender biases in (selection) interviews for study programs and residency trainings.”

I do not think these expressions are necessary, they even disrupt the flow. Going directly to the subject to be explained will help to understand more clearly.

6. It is sufficient to mention only the purpose of the research in the "Research objectives" section on page 5. Including the following section in the strengths and limitations section of the research will increase fluency. It should be moved to the relevant section

“Similar to the few existing studies addressing biases in university admissions interviews (as discussed in the previous section), our investigation is a one-site study. Consequently, the results may not be generalizable due to the specificity of the selection procedure. However, our study introduces several innovations and expansions compared to pre- vious research:

• Our data encompasses not only individual years but the analysis of all interviews con- ducted over a span of 15 years, providing a significantly larger dataset and greater rep- resentativeness of the examined selection process.

• The focus of the paper is on interaction effects between the gender of interviewees and interviewers and goes beyond simple group-comparisons

• Instead of merely reporting differences, we aim to provide explanatory approaches. For Instead of merely reporting differences, we aim to provide explanatory approaches. For instance, we examine whether certain characteristics, such as the presence of voluntary service, can account for differences and whether these are gender-specific.”

7. Likewise, the first paragraph on page 6 should be moved to the limitations section

“Some constraints of our study should be acknowledged upfront. Our study does not aim to draw clear conclusions about whether any differences represent a "true" bias based on favoritism or discrimination e.g. due to gender-specific stereotypes. This is hindered by the lack of infor- mation and documentation regarding the reasons behind given evaluations.

We do also not contribute to biases, specifically gender bias, on a conceptual or theoretical level. The focus is on a positive, empirical examination of potential interviewer biases embed- ded in the selection of applicants into medical school.”

8. Write MHH open under Figure 1

(Figure 1: The student selection procedure at MHH)

9. Page 21 --- A study by [37] ------ work done by whom? (please specify author)

10. Include the strengths and limitations of the study after the discussion section.

11. Finally, what is your take-home message? Please state it more clearly.

Good work

**********

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.

Examining interviewer bias in medical school admissions:

The interplay between applicant and interviewer gender and its effects on interview outcomes

PONE-D-23-41751R1

Dear Dr. Tsikas,

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

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We thank the authors for the thorough consideration of the reviewers' inputs.

We are pleased to communicate that the manuscript currently satisfies the requirements for publication in PLOS One.

Reviewers' comments: