PONE-D-24-18470Collaborative attitudes and trust among medical and dental professionals in Saudi ArabiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aboalshamat,

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 11 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,

Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, MFDS. RCPS Glasg, Ph.D. Endo

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Kindly read all the comments carefully and carry on the revisions in the revised manuscript accordingly

Best regards and keep well

[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: 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: Introduction

1. There is a lack of clarity and flow.

2. There is repetition of sentences, particularly regarding the importance of interprofessional collaboration and the differences in attitudes among students from different regions.

3. Statements like "some of these studies" and "one study found" are vague. It would be more impactful to specify which studies are being referred to

4. The introduction does not clearly define the term "interprofessional collaboration" until midway through the paragraph.

5. Insufficient Literature Review

6. There is a confusion as introduction shifts focus from general oral health to student attitudes without a clear rationale.

7. Kindly ensure that all references are correctly formatted and consistently presented. For example, “1” should be verified for proper citation style according to the journal's guidelines.

Aim

1. The clear connection is missing from the concept of trust to interprofessional collaboration.

2. There is some repetition in the explanation of trust and its importance in patient relationships.

Materials and Methods Section

1. The materials and methods section is very brief and lacks details regarding information on how the sample size was calculated, the sampling method, data collection procedures, and analysis techniques.

2. The methods would be made better by breaking it down into study design, setting, participants, sample size calculation, data collection, and data analysis.

Results

1. There is bias in Convenience Sampling as it does not have a representative sample of the population.

2. The decision to rely on social media could be wrong as apps may exclude professionals who are not active on these platforms leading to a selection bias.

3. The breaking of category of attitudes based on scores (negative, neutral, positive) is somewhat random and may oversimplify complex attitudes.

Discussion

1. The discussion section presents the results but does not dig deep into the implications or reasons behind these findings.

2. The previous studies are mentioned but does not adequately compare and contrast these with the current study’s findings.

3. There is no thorough integration of the current study’s findings with the broader body of literature.

4. The discussion briefly mentions non-significant results (e.g., no significant differences based on age, gender, etc.) but does not explore their implications.

5. The discussion does not address the practical implications of the findings or provide recommendations for future practice or research.

6. The study lacks explanation for why no relationship was found between education level and collaborative attitudes in this study.

7. There is a clear lack of practical implications of the findings.

Reviewer #2: 1. The use of convenience sampling may introduce bias, as it does not guarantee a representative sample of the entire population of medical and dental professionals in Saudi Arabia. This impacts the external validity and generalizability of the findings.

2. Relying on social media for distributing the questionnaire might exclude professionals who are not active on these platforms, leading to potential sampling bias.

3. The study relies on self-reported data, which can be influenced by social desirability bias. Participants might provide answers they perceive as favourable rather than their true opinions.

4. The sample was unevenly distributed across different regions of Saudi Arabia, with a significant proportion from the Western region. This regional bias may affect the generalizability of the findings across the entire country.

5. The questionnaire was adapted from previous studies; there is limited information on whether the adapted version was validated for the Saudi context. Cultural differences might affect how questions are interpreted and answered.

6. The cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causality. Longitudinal studies would be better suited to assess changes in attitudes and trust over time and to establish causal relationships.

7. The study identifies specific specialties that participants perceive as related to dentistry. However, it does not deeply explore the nature or quality of these interactions, nor does it identify strategies to enhance collaboration in less frequently mentioned specialties like obstetrics/gynecology.

8. Likert scales are useful for quantifying attitudes, they may oversimplify complex opinions and lead to central tendency bias.

9. Conducting longitudinal studies can help track changes in attitudes and trust over time, providing a deeper understanding of how these relationships evolve.

10. Ensuring that questionnaires are culturally adapted and validated for the specific context of Saudi Arabia can improve the reliability and validity of the results.

11. Incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, can provide richer insights into the reasons behind the attitudes and trust levels, as well as potential barriers to effective collaboration.

12. Investigating the impact of integrated educational programs on the collaborative attitudes and trust between dental and medical students could provide evidence for curriculum development.

13. The study provides valuable insights into the collaborative attitudes and trust between dental and medical professionals in Saudi Arabia, addressing its limitations through methodological improvements and further research can enhance the understanding and effectiveness of interprofessional collaboration in healthcare.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Sandeep Bailwad

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.

Collaborative attitudes and trust among medical and dental professionals in Saudi Arabia

PONE-D-24-18470R1

Dear Dr. Aboalshamat,

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,

Prof Dr Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD. Endo, MFDS. RCPS Glasg, FDS. RCS Eng, Ph.D. Endo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

The authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions reviewers gave, and the manuscript has dramatically improved. I would like to congratulate the authors and wish them all the very best in their future endeavors.

Best regards and keep well

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Thank you Authors for addressing all the recommendations made and making the necessary corrections

Please keep up the good work

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Thank you for addressing all the recommendation as submitted for the manuscript. Please keep up the good work.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Sandeep Bailwad

Reviewer #2: No

**********