Multiple mini-interviews as admission process: A study on perception of health science students in Universiti Brunei Darussalam

Faiza Alam; Fatimah Az-Zahraa; Fazean Idris; Hanif Abdul Rahman

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314778

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 7, 2023
28 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Hanna Landenmark, Editor PONE-D-23-20665Multiple mini-interviews as admission process: a study on perception of health science students in Universiti Brunei DarussalamPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alam, 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 see the comments from one reviewer below. Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. Please ensure that your work is thoroughly copyedited before resubmission. We note that there are grammatical errors in the title and throughout the manuscript, and that there is a variation of tenses used in the manuscript. Please ensure that the generalisability of the findings beyond the case study used is clear - PLOS ONE does not publish case studies, and results must add to the existing body of academic knowledge. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 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, Hanna Landenmark Staff 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 Competing Interests section: "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: [All researchers, Dr Faiza Alam, Dr Fazean Irdayati Idris, and Dr Hanif Abdul Rahman would declare their conflict of interest with the participants as all the four mentioned are either studying with or teaching the participants. This will not affect the study results by any means]." Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: This is a useful work particularly relevant to new schools or those that are implementing the MMI for the first time. Institutions, where the MMI is well established, would find the work applicable to tracking the quality of stations as seen by the applicants, which is important information. The authors correctly point out that the experience during the admissions process can affect the reputation of the school and the decision of students to attend or select another school. The authors use a combination of qualitative and quantitative statistical approaches, which, as is noted, are necessary given the number of objectives. Comment 1: The paper would benefit if the authors provided a list of objectives, Although a complex study was well designed, it suffered from a poor response, which brought the numbers to a lower threshold. Nevertheless, it does show the strengths and weaknesses of the MMI. The authors should provide more information in the study on “preparing for the MMI”. The following questions need clarification. Did the applicants have the specific stations that they encountered in the MMI or were they given a generic set of questions? How far in advance did they receive the stations? Were they instructed on limitations in discussing their stations with fellow applicants or others? Did all applicants have access to the same quality of libraries? The authors noted that, depending on preparation for the MMI some applicants were more comfortable with stations than other participants in the study. Was the degree of comfort with a specific station a predictor of performance? Was the degree of comfort with the entire process a predictor of performance? Again, this would be useful information for planners of an MMI ****** 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 ******** [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.0314778.r001
Revision 1
7 Jan 2024 Author Response Comments to the Author Reviewer 1 Comment: The paper would benefit if the authors provided a list of objectives. Response: Objectives have been added at the end of the introduction section. (Page 6, Lines107 – 112) Comment: Although a complex study was well designed, it suffered from a poor response, which brought the numbers to a lower threshold. Nevertheless, it does show the strengths and weaknesses of the MMI. The authors should provide more information in the study on “preparing for the MMI”. The following questions need clarification. Did the applicants have the specific stations that they encountered in the MMI or were they given a generic set of questions? Response: They were given a generic set of questions. In the MMI, students were tested in ten individual stations that assessed the following skills: A: Students’ motivation, qualities and achievements, communication, and self-reflection B: Knowledge of Health Care and Current Issues C: Ethics D: Critical Thinking Comment: How far in advance did they receive the stations? Response: They were briefed by giving a set of instructions and information on the themes of the stations via email 2 weeks before the MMI. They were given 5 minutes to familiarise themselves with the stations before each station began. Comment: Were they instructed on limitations in discussing their stations with fellow applicants or others? Response: The applicants were instructed not to discuss the stations with their peers. Comment: Did all applicants have access to the same quality of libraries? Response: Applicants came from different prior institutions, and therefore quality of libraries would differ. Applicants' preparations for the MMI were dependent on their ability to prepare from various sources and not restricted to any libraries. General recommendations for the MMI preparation were made without giving specific access to libraries. Comment: The authors noted that, depending on preparation for the MMI some applicants were more comfortable with stations than other participants in the study. Was the degree of comfort with a specific station a predictor of performance? Response: Rather than comfort, MMI assessors provided a score for the global rating of the applicant during the interview. This score was based on the assessor's overall impression of the candidate, specifically looking at their communication skills and how articulated their responses were, how confident and composed they were, their professional appearance and demeanour, as well as motivation and enthusiasm during their time spent in each station, and scored separately by respective assessors pertinent to that station. Comment: Was the degree of comfort with the entire process a predictor of performance? Again, this would be useful information for planners of an MMI. Response: In our Institute's interview process, the global rating was not factored in the total scoring of applicants' performance, but rather as a deciding factor when evaluating borderline applicants (for example if two or more applicants had the same scores, the global rating will assist in making the final decision between the two). The detailed process of MMI at PAPRSB Institute of Health Sciences UBD has been previously published separately. Citation: Alam F, Lim YC, Chaw LL, Idris F, Kok KYY. Multiple mini-interviews is a predictor of students' academic achievements in early undergraduate medical years: a retrospective study. BMC Med Educ. 2023 Mar 27;23(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04183-7. PMID: 36973779; PMCID: PMC10044430. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314778.r002
6 May 2024 Decision Letter - Ayse Hilal Bati, Editor PONE-D-23-20665R1Multiple mini-interviews as admission process: a study on perception of health science students in Universiti Brunei DarussalamPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alam, 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. ============================== As observed in the referee evaluations of the article, providing more detailed explanations, especially regarding the analysis of qualitative data, is important for the reliability and validity of the research. The use of quantitative and qualitative data together requires evaluation with mixed research methodology. It would be appropriate to consider the discussion and conclusion sections within this framework. I believe that it would be appropriate to revise and edit the article for these reasons.: Indicate which changes you require for acceptance versus which changes you recommend Address any conflicts between the reviews so that it's clear which advice the authors should follow Provide specific feedback from your evaluation of the manuscript Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 20 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, Ayse Hilal Bati, Professor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments: Dear Author/s, As observed in the referee evaluations of the article, providing more detailed explanations, especially regarding the analysis of qualitative data, is important for the reliability and validity of the research. The use of quantitative and qualitative data together requires evaluation with mixed research methodology. It would be appropriate to consider the discussion and conclusion sections within this framework. I believe that it would be appropriate to revise and edit the article for these reasons. [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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #2: All the reviewer's comments have been addressed satisfactorily. There is good improvement in this revised paper. Reviewer #3: Dear author, The statistcial data analysis usedin this paper is wrong and not suitable for the data. APA was not followed in the paper. The discussion is poorly written and does not address the previous reserach. ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Houman Bijani ******** [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.0314778.r003
Revision 2
23 Jul 2024 Author Response Date: May 06 2024 12:57AM Subject: PLOS ONE Decision: Revision required [PONE-D-23-20665R1] EDITOR COMMENT 1: As observed in the referee evaluations of the article, providing more detailed explanations, especially regarding the analysis of qualitative data, is important for the reliability and validity of the research. The use of quantitative and qualitative data together requires evaluation with mixed research methodology. It would be appropriate to consider the discussion and conclusion sections within this framework. I believe that it would be appropriate to revise and edit the article for these reasons. Response: Thank you for your valuable input and we agree with the comment. This paper has utilised mixed methods approach, and has interpretation of the findings are that of complementary of each method, following through in the discussion and conclusion. Please find the revised manuscript submission. Thank you for your kind reconsideration and we hope to receive your favourable decision soon. REVIEWER # 2 COMMENTS: All the reviewer's comments have been addressed satisfactorily. There is good improvement in this revised paper. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we greatly appreciate it. REVIEWER # 3 COMMENTS: Comment #1: The statistical data analysis used in this paper is wrong and not suitable for the data. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We would appreciate further clarification on this point. Currently, we are comparing a categorical factor towards a categorical outcome, and the chi-square test is appropriately used in this univariable inference. Due to the limitation of a small sample size, higher order analysis was not possible and this is acknowledged. Comment #2: APA was not followed in the paper. Response: PLOS One requirement is Vancouver and not APA style. Thus, APA has not been followed in the manuscript. Comment #3: The discussion is poorly written and does not address the previous research. Response: We have revised the discussion section as per the comment. Kindly find our revised manuscript submission. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314778.r004
14 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Ayse Hilal Bati, Editor PONE-D-23-20665R2Multiple mini-interviews as admission process: a study on perception of health science students in Universiti Brunei DarussalamPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alam, 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. In addition to the minor suggestion made by Reviewer #4 below, please also ensure that: - APA formatting has been fully followed throughout the paper - the discussion sufficiently incorporates previous supporting literature Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 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, Ayse Hilal Bati, Professor 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. Additional Editor Comments : Thank you [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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 #2: All the reviewers' comments have been addressed satisfactorily. There is good improvement in this second revised paper. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Although this study is not the first in its field, it is well organized and completed in a way that includes elements which can provide ideas for the future. In addition, the authors have revised the text by taking into account the suggestions of previous reviewers. It is seen that these revisions are sufficient. Only the table number given in lines 239-240 is incorrect. It is the table where the quotations are given and it is called Table 4, but it should be Table 5. ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Houman Bijani Reviewer #4: 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.0314778.r005
Revision 3
20 Oct 2024 Author Response Date: Oct 14 2024 05:18AM Subject: PLOS ONE Decision: Revision required [PONE-D-23-20665R2] EDITOR COMMENT 1: In addition to the minor suggestion made by Reviewer #4 below, please also ensure that: - APA formatting has been fully followed throughout the paper - the discussion sufficiently incorporates previous supporting literature. Response: APA formatting has been fully followed throughout the paper . REVIEWER # 2 COMMENTS: All the reviewer's comments have been addressed satisfactorily. There is good improvement in this revised paper. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we greatly appreciate it. REVIEWER # 3 COMMENTS: No Response REVIEWER # 4 COMMENTS: Although this study is not the first in its field, it is well organized and completed in a way that includes elements which can provide ideas for the future. In addition, the authors have revised the text by taking into account the suggestions of previous reviewers. It is seen that these revisions are sufficient. Only the table number given in lines 239-240 is incorrect. It is the table where the quotations are given and it is called Table 4, but it should be Table 5. Response: The table number has been edited. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314778.r006
18 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Ayse Hilal Bati, Editor Multiple mini-interviews as admission process: a study on perception of health science students in Universiti Brunei Darussalam PONE-D-23-20665R3 Dear Dr. Alam, 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, Ayse Hilal Bati, Professor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, Thanks for your research. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314778.r007
Formally Accepted
22 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ayse Hilal Bati, Editor PONE-D-23-20665R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alam, 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. Ayse Hilal Bati Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314778.r008

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 .