PONE-D-24-01714Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward NursesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

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 May 10 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,

Fatma Ay, 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. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by the Graduate Program for Social ICT Global Creative Leaders (GCL) 

of The University of Tokyo by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

(MEXT), Japan."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"・ST.

・There is no grant number.

・The Global Creative Leaders (GCL) program of The University of Tokyo by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

・https://www.gcl.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp/faq-2/subsidies/

・The sponsors or funders did not play any role in the study."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly. Therefore, due to the sensitive nature of the research, supporting data is not available. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Shingo Tanaka, 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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

7. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate ""supporting information"" files

8. 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.

[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: Partly

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: Comments to the Author

Thanks to the authors for showing us the manuscript of “Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward Nurses”. Overall, this manuscript is interesting. However, there are numerous concerns that need to be addressed.

1. This manuscript weakens the process of developing the scale, and only shows the verification results. The scale development process should be introduced in detail, and the scales obtained from each round of item selection, the items deleted and the final scale can be displayed in the appendix if there are too many contents.

2.The exploratory factor analysis method is commonly employed in scale development. Could you please clarify why the manuscript utilized both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods simultaneously? Kindly provide an explanation within the manuscript.

3.The author should review the usage of technical terminology throughout the entire text, such as replacing "patient transfer" with "patient referral".

4.The full text format should be adjusted to align the two ends, enhancing its aesthetic appeal.

5.Keywords: The keywords should be separated by quotation marks, with each keyword capitalized at the beginning.

6.Abstract: The abstract is excessively verbose. It is advisable to be more succinct.

7.Introduction:

a)The introduction is excessively lengthy. I recommend condensing it logically and merging relevant theoretical content, with a focus on elaborating the significance of nurses' perspective in receiving discharged patients for institutional staff.

b)“It is defined as ‘the active cognitive process of imagining the world from another’s vantage point or imagining oneself in another’s shoes to understand their visual viewpoint, thoughts, motivations, intentions, and/or emotions’ [12 pp. 94-95]”, the utilization of “12pp” in this sentence lacks standardization.

c)“In this study, the staff receiving discharged patients comprise nurses, home care

nurses, and public health nurses in the jurisdictional district who receive patients from the hospital after discharge. ”，the paragraph commencing with this sentence introduces the purpose and significance within the preceding context, rendering it more suitable for placement in the methods section from both a content and structural standpoint.

8.Methods:

a)In the section of “Data collection”, the three subheadings “Item development”, “Evaluation by an expert”, and “Scale validation” did not appear to fall within the scope of data collection. Change is recommended.

b) The section on “Evaluation by an expert” lacks clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for experts, a specific process for evaluating the scale, indicators for making modifications, and a presentation of the obtained scale evaluation in this study.

c) The specific method of randomization used in the manuscript was not specified by the author, and no explanation of the process was provided. The authors are encouraged to provide a more detailed explanation of the randomization method employed and offer a comprehensive program description.

d) The section on "Surveyed facilities" lacks an explicit explanation in the text regarding the criteria and sources employed for selecting the 45 hospitals. It would be beneficial if the author could incorporate a comprehensive clarification within the text.

e) The “Participants” section should be organized and written in a manner that includes clear inclusion and exclusion criteria.

9.Results:

a)The low response rate of the questionnaire may result in sample underrepresentation, leading to bias and compromising the credibility of survey findings. With only 61 participants completing the second survey, it is necessary for the author to provide further explanations and clarifications in their manuscript.

b)The ICC value is unsatisfactory, and it is recommended to discuss in the discussion section for an analysis of the underlying reasons as well as exploration of potential improvement methods.

c)The results section should include a demonstration of the reliability and validity of the scale development process.

10.Discussion:

a) Authors are advised to incorporate a concise summary of the findings section within the introductory paragraph of the discussion section. And insert it into the first paragraph of this section.

b) As previously mentioned, this scale can assess the level of nurses' comprehension regarding the discharge plan staff, thereby enhancing inter-institutional collaboration and discharge plan effectiveness. The concept of perspective-taking originates from inherent human nature and falls within the realm of psychological research. While the impact of various motivations or intervention mechanisms may be more pronounced, this manuscript does not explicitly highlight the significance and value of this scale for discharge referral. Therefore, it is hoped that the author will provide an explanation in the discussion section.

c) "It differs from existing scales that measure the perspectives of other people and colleagues in daily life.", it lacks in-depth discussion on the comparison of scales, which measure the perspectives of other people and colleagues in daily life. I suggest providing specific explanations and conducting a thorough analysis to highlight the differences between this scale and existing ones, as well as exploring the underlying reasons for these distinctions.

Acknowledgments: “This research was supported by XXX”, the expression is not precision enough.

Tables:

a)In table 2, the specific explanation regarding F1 and F2 is currently unavailable.

b)The p-value annotation is not standardized and should be revised to p≤.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this excellent article. It is a well written manuscript both in terms of English and academic importance.

I hae a few minor comments which should be considered in order to improve the article.

1. Line 97 to 103 should be part of the methods section. The last sentence of the Background section should be: "the aim of this study...."

2. The limitations paragrahs require expansion, for example can a predominantly female sample also be valid for male nursing staff?

3. Is a response of 32-35% considered a high or acceptable response rate? In both cases of the questionnaire, time 1 and time 2, the response percentage was similar.

4. Line 164-165 Exclusion criteria mentioned - "nurse worked as nursing managers". Despite what is mentioned in the methods chapter, in table 1, it is written that about a third of the respondents to the first questionnaire are in management positions. Shouldn't they have been disqualified?

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-01714R1Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward NursesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

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 07 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,

Fatma Ay, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE  

[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: (No Response)

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: I Don't Know

**********

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: Thanks to the authors for showing us the revised manuscript of “Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward Nurses”. Overall, this manuscript is interesting. But there are plenty of concerns.

1.Please further refine the screening process. Firstly, provide a comprehensive explanation in the manuscript regarding the rationale behind setting the items adjustment criteria at 0.75 and 0.83 (I-CVI). Secondly, if we consider using 0.75 as the screening criterion in the initial round, it would necessitate removing 13 items. Please explain how the 28 items reviewed in the first round were refined to 22 items reviewed in the second round. Also, how the final 20 items were determined.

2.Keywords: The format of keywords still contains some errors, which should be revised to a more standardized format: Hospital nursing staff; Multidisciplinary care team.

3.Introduction:

a) The introduction section remains excessively lengthy and it is advisable to streamline it further.

b) “It is defined as ‘the active cognitive process of imagining the world from another’s vantage point or imagining oneself in another’s shoes to understand their visual viewpoint, thoughts, motivations, intentions, and/or emotions’ [12] (94-95)”, please explain the specific meaning of “(94-95) ”and elucidate it within the manuscript.

4. Methods: In the section of “Surveyed facilities”, while the authors included details of the randomization process for 200 hospitals, they did not clearly state the source of involvement for 45 hospitals. It is necessary to clarify whether these 45 hospitals have any affiliation with the aforementioned 200 hospitals.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Second review report..docx

PONE-D-24-01714R2Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward NursesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

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 26 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,

Fatma Ay, Ph.D

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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: Comments to the Authors

Thanks to the authors for showing us the revised manuscript of “Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward Nurses”. Overall, this manuscript is much better now. But there are still some questions.

1.During the construction of the professional scale, these items should be deleted if items falls below the pre-set standard (I-CVI). If these items are to be reintegrated and rephrased with other items, it is necessary to conduct a survey of the scale again before experts evaluation can be carried out.

2.Introduction:

a) In the section of introduction, 3 to 5 paragraphs primarily show the current research situation about “perspective-taking”, which is excessively lengthy. It is recommended to streamline and summarize the theoretical aspects instead of presenting literature details.

b) The Vancouver style employs superscript numbering and rarely includes the page number of the referenced literature. "12 pp. 94-95" requires further correction, and the entire text should be standardized to a similar format: [1].

Reviewer #3: It is a good topic for Nurse- mangers to apply this developed scale " Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale for Ward Nurses at hospitals.

The findings and results benefit all in-charge nurses to have a better plan to discharge the patients .

It is recommended to revise the whole paper by English language in Nursing sciences, It will be better.

**********

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 #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Third review report...docx

Development of the Ward Nurses’ Perspective-taking of the Staff Receiving Discharged Patients Scale: An Observational Study of Ward Nurses

PONE-D-24-01714R3

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

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,

Fatma Ay, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: