The influence of kindness on academics’ identity, well-being and stress

K. Kanoho Hosoda; Mica Estrada

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312269

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 2, 2024
30 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Mary Diane Clark, Editor PONE-D-24-15380The Influence of Kindness on Academics’ Identity, Well-being and StressPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hosoda, 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. I enjoyed the manuscript and I only have a few comments for you to revise. Both reviewers also made only a few suggestions. on line 314 one of you stats became a square and on line 472 please change the & to the word and We look forward to your edits. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 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. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. The reviewers have noted some minor issues that need to be addressed. Then please submit the manuscript again. 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, Mary Diane Clark, PhD 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The research reported in this paper was supported by NIH grants 3R01GM138700-01S1 and #K99GM151640. We thank and acknowledge Janice Vong, Natalia Maldonado, Dr. Gregory Hancock, Dr. Paul Hernandez, and Dr. Shujin Zhong for their support with this study." 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: "KH #K99GM151640 National Institutes of Health https://www.nigms.nih.gov/ ME #3R01GM138700-01S1 National Institutes of Health https://www.nigms.nih.gov/ The funder did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. 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. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Than you for submitting this interesting article. The reviews find it an important manuscript but note some editorial issues that we need to take care of as PLOS ONE does not have a copy editor [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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: No ****** 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: In this study, they examine how academics experience kindness in their institutions and to what extent experiences of kindness are related to academics' experiences of well-being, stress, and self-identification with the institution. Overall, it is a carefully crafted study both in content and style. It addresses a novel topic, which constitutes a contribution to the literature. However, some minor suggestions are recommended to enhance the article. Background: There is a lack of connection between line 51 and 52. While the thread of the paragraph becomes clear towards the end, it is not apparent at the beginning. To facilitate comprehension, I would suggest dividing each overarching objective into specific ones. Method: Regarding sample selection, it is indicated that 77% were working in academia while 23% were students. However, the theoretical framework does not address the power hierarchy that may exist in vertical and horizontal relationships and the differences that may exist in the variables studied. Results: While some descriptive data are provided in the method, I believe it is necessary to add a figure or table with the means and standard deviations of the variables under study. Discussion: If potential differences between workers and students are not going to be addressed, it could be included as a future line of research. This may make more sense than the topic of aggressions. Reviewer #2: The article, with its profound insights into the impact of the pandemic on well-being in higher education, is not just a crucial read for educators, but a testament to their value in this discussion. Understanding the challenges their students and colleagues face and learning how to support them through acts of kindness is a vital aspect of their integral role. The author needs to address the following items: - Ensure to include a hyphen in the word well-being consistently - Font type and font size need to be consistent (lines 166, 169, 209-210, 219, 250-251, 264, 350, 352-353, 355-356, 360, 370, 376, 390, 401, 429, 435-436, 464, 472, 477) - Research question - why is it italics? (lines 94-95 & 130-132) - Remove extra spaces (lines 137 & 353) - The study stated that 21.4% were in STEM fields but did not include 78.6%. Who was part of 78.6%? The total needs to add up to 100%. (line 176) - Ethnic Demographic Distribution - the total does not add up to 100% (lines 177-180) - Table 2 (line 309): Highlight the rows and columns interchangeability so that they are readable, and remove the border at the last row, "Note:..." - Line 386 - need to confirm whether it should be N=162 or N=182 (Overall, (N=162),...) - The total does not add up to 100% (line 403) - Figure 1 diagram - Paths labeled Dgx & Drx in the description should be different, not the same. - Figure 2 diagram - the word Kindness Given should be labeled instead of Kindness Action - Supplemental Table 1 - font type needs to be consistent throughout ****** 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: Julia Sánchez-García 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.0312269.r001
Revision 1
10 Sep 2024 Author Response Dear PLOS ONE Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript titled “The influence of kindness on academics’ identity, well-being, and stress” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-15380). We have carefully considered each of the comments and have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised. We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality of our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to make these improvements. Please find below our detailed responses to the comments, organized by reviewer. Editor: 1. Comment: Please ensure manuscript meets PLOS ONE style requirements. a. Response: We have carefully reviewed and applied PLOS ONE’s style templates. b. Action Taken: All headers, tables, figures, and supplemental materials have been revised to meet the requirements. 2. Comment: Funding should not appear in the acknowledgements section a. Response: The funding information was in both the acknowledgements section and the funding statement. b. Action Taken: Funding information was removed from the acknowledgements section. 3. Comment: Please include your full ethics statement in the methods section of the manuscript, including the full name of the IRB committee. a. Response: The requested information is now included in the Methods section b. Action Taken: The following was included in the Methods section: “The study was reviewed and approved by the University of California San Francisco Mount Zion Committee Institutional Review Board (#21-35884). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.” 4. Comment: Please include captions for your supporting files at the end of your manuscript. a. Response: Added a caption at the end of the manuscript file. b. Action Taken: The following was added at the end of the manuscript in the Supporting Information section: “S1 Table. Percentage, frequency, and examples of dignity affirmations for all 10 categories identified in the written responses.” 5. Comment: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. a. Response: All references were checked for completeness. b. Action Taken: Reference 23 was updated with final publication information: Estrada M, Hosoda KK. Leading with Heroic Kindness. Encyclopedia of Heroism Studies. Springer Cham; 2023. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17125-3 6. Additional Change a. The author, K. Kanoho Hosoda, has started a new position at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. The author affiliation and contact information has been changed accordingly. Reviewer 1: 1. Comment: There is a lack of connection between line 51 and 52 a. Response: The author agrees with the comment. b. Action Taken: The second clause was removed from the sentence in line 51. The two sentences now read: “A variety of definitions of an act of kindness exists in the literature [18,19]. The emphasis in these definitions is on the nature of the action done.” 2. Comment: The theoretical framework does not address the power hierarchy that may exist between those working in academia versus those who are studying in academia. a. Response: The author agrees there is a power hierarchy that is not addressed. b. Action Taken: The power hierarchy is address in the discussion section, see comment below. 3. Comment: It is necessary to add a figure or table with means and standard deviations of the variables under study a. Response: The author agrees that the addition of a table with means and standard deviations would improve the manuscript. b. Action Take: Table 1. Summary of sample descriptive statistics was included. 4. Comment: If potential differences between workers and students are not going to be addressed, it could be included as a future line of research. This may make more sense than the topic of aggressions. a. Response: The author agrees that the differences between workers and students should be addressed in future work. b. Action Taken: The following was included in the discussion section of the manuscript: “We acknowledge that increased variability may exist in this sample of academics, which includes both higher education students and people who work in higher education from various fields of study. We recognize there is a power hierarchy between students, staff, and faculty members in higher education that may influence outcomes. While this study did not directly address the power hierarchy within higher education, future studies would benefit from comparing these different communities within higher education environments.” Reviewer 2: 1. Comment(s): Formatting discrepancies including: 1) consistency of the hyphen in well-being, 2) font size, 3) italicizing research question, 4) extra spacing a. Response: Author acknowledges the errors in formatting b. Action Taken: Paper was reformatted using PLOS ONE style requirements and copy edited for hyphen consistency, font size, italics, and spacing. 2. Comment: The study stated that 21.4% were in STEM fields but did not include 78.6%. Who was part of 78.6%? The total needs to add up to 100%. a. Response: Percentages did not add up due to rounding errors b. Action Taken: All percentages and numbers were rounded to the nearest hundredth. 3. Comment: Ethnic Demographic Distribution - the total does not add up to 100% (lines 177-180) a. Response: Percentages did not add up due to rounding errors b. Action Taken: All percentages and numbers were rounded to the nearest hundredth. 4. Comment: Table 2 (line 309): Highlight the rows and columns interchangeability so that they are readable, and remove the border at the last row, "Note:..." a. Response: We recognize the error and acknowledge highlighting will improve readability b. Action Taken: Rows were highlighted interchangeably for the table, which is now Table 3. 5. Comment: Line 386 - need to confirm whether it should be N=162 or N=182 (Overall, (N=162),...) a. Response: We agree it the sample was unclear. b. Action Taken: We included the percentage and further explanation as follows: “Notably, 89.01% of the participants (N=162 of the 182 study participants) listed words...” 6. Comment: The total does not add up to 100% (line 403) a. Response: The author does not agree with the comment, as the total adds up to 100. b. Action Taken: None. 41.98+22.22+12.96+11.73+11.11= 100 7. Comment: Figure 1 diagram - Paths labeled Dgx & Drx in the description should be different, not the same. a. Response: We agree with the comment b. Action Taken: Path labels were revised in the figure. 8. Comment: Figure 2 diagram - the word Kindness Given should be labeled instead of Kindness Action a. Response: We agree with the comment. b. Action Taken: The label Kindness Action was revised to Kindness Given. 9. Comment: Supplemental Table 1 - font type needs to be consistent throughout a. Response: We agree the supplemental table needed to be revised. b. Action Taken: Formatting including font type and size were revised. Additionally, all percentages were rounded to the nearest hundredth instead of the nearest tenth to maintain consistency throughout the paper. We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers and the editor for your thorough and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the manuscript based on your feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the standards of PLOS ONE and addresses all the concerns raised. However, if there are any additional questions or further revisions needed, we are more than willing to address them promptly. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look forward to your favorable response. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312269.r002
4 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Mary Diane Clark, Editor The influence of kindness on academics’ identity, well-being and stress PONE-D-24-15380R1 Dear Dr. Hosoda, 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, Mary Diane Clark, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for your edits. the topic is interesting and we wish you well in your future publications. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312269.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mary Diane Clark, Editor PONE-D-24-15380R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hosoda, 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 Dr. Mary Diane Clark Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312269.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 .