Turning the spotlight: Hostile behavior in creative higher education and links to mental health in marginalized groups

Marina Fischer; Susanne Veit; Pichit Buspavanich; Gertraud Stadler

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315089

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 30, 2024
8 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Vincenzo Auriemma, Editor PONE-D-24-25065Turning the spotlight: Hostile behavior in creative higher education and links to mental health in marginalized groups.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fischer, 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 Nov 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Vincenzo Auriemma 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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments : Dear Author, based on the revisions received, I suggest you read and check if the minor revisions requested can be fulfilled. In this way the work can receive greater appeal. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is an insightful and important paper with a rich data base, clear figures, and overall, well written. Some suggested edits for structure/format are below: In the "Perspectives on hostile behaviors" section - opening 2 sentences are not a complete paragraph. I suggest moving the last paragraph in the section (currently bottom of p.4) to the end of the second opening sentence, thus making a full paragraph and improving the flow of the first main section. I was surprised no significant association between hostile behavior and participants' reported closeness with the creative industries - this could be unpacked more in the discussion and/or on p. 18. Very long sub-heading on p. 19 serves more like a topic sentence than a sub-heading. I encourage the authors to revisit their subheadings - there are many of them, sometimes with sections only 1 paragraph long, and some subheadings, like the one on p.19, are serving the purpose of a topic sentence rather than a sub-heading. Similarly, the "Support Structure Awareness" section on p. 20 is only 2 sentences long. This should be revised. Discussion section is strong and use of important concepts/terms such as a continuum view of violence and use of diversity domains are a strength of the paper. Interventions listed on pp. 25-26 are important. I suggest the sub-heading is revised to highlight this is a section focused on recommended interventions. I also suggest a table or bulleted list to highlight the important takeaway suggestions for readers who are in a position to implement such interventions to clearly be able to see and remember them. Currently they could easily be lost during a quick read. Reviewer #2: The article is particularly interesting. However, in several places in it there are portions of text that could be merged to make the text uniform. Likewise, the titles would need to be reworded to make them more appealing. Finally, I recommend a re-reading of the entire text to correct the remaining typos. ****** 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: Yes: Luisa Nardi ******** [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.0315089.r001
Revision 1
19 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Vincenzo Auriemma, Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript Turning the spotlight: Hostile behavior in creative higher education and links to mental health in marginalized groups by Marina Fischer, Susanne Veit, Pichit Buspavanich, and Gertraud Stadler. We highly appreciate your interest in our work and are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments. In light of the constructive feedback, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript, taking into account the suggestions put forth by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2. Notes regarding each point raised are included in this document. We uploaded both a marked-up copy with highlighted changes to the manuscript, and an unmarked version to the PLOS One Editorial Manager. Please note that owing to partial restructuring and moving of text passages, some references in the reference list have been renumbered. These changes can also be tracked in highlighted mode. There have been no other changes to the reference list. In order to comply with open research principles while adhering to the data protection restrictions set forth by the Ethics Board of our institution (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, https://ethikkommission.charite.de/en/), we provide a de-identified data slice containing relevant variables that have been thoroughly anonymized. We submit a comprehensive data protection protocol in conjunction with our manuscript. The data slice alongside study materials is accessible via the OSF repository: https://osf.io/stced. As some of the reviewers’ comments concerned issues of language and style, thorough professional language editing has been applied throughout the whole manuscript in order to enhance the appeal even more. We value your further consideration of our manuscript for publication in PLOS One. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Marina Fischer ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ In the following section, we present a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments. We would like to express our gratitude to Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 for dedicating their valuable time and providing insightful contributions. We are most grateful for the helpful feedback you have provided, which has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our manuscript. Please find below point-by-point responses to the comments that have been provided. All amendments are indicated in the marked-up version of the revised manuscript. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Reviewer #1: This is an insightful and important paper with a rich data base, clear figures, and overall, well written. Response: We are grateful for the appreciative feedback from Reviewer 1 regarding our work. ___________________________________________________________________________ Some suggested edits for structure/format are below: In the "Perspectives on hostile behaviors" section - opening 2 sentences are not a complete paragraph. I suggest moving the last paragraph in the section (currently bottom of p.4) to the end of the second opening sentence, thus making a full paragraph and improving the flow of the first main section. Response: We thank Reviewer 1 for the helpful comment on the text structure, which we have changed accordingly. The paragraph can now be found on p.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ I was surprised no significant association between hostile behavior and participants' reported closeness with the creative industries - this could be unpacked more in the discussion and/or on p. 18. Response: We fully agree with this comment and are grateful for the detailed interest in our research results. We also believe that this aspect should receive more attention. We have therefore gladly taken up the suggestion and discussed some possible interpretations of this finding on p. 25-26. _________________________________________________________________________ Very long sub-heading on p. 19 serves more like a topic sentence than a sub-heading. I encourage the authors to revisit their subheadings - there are many of them, sometimes with sections only 1 paragraph long, and some subheadings, like the one on p.19, are serving the purpose of a topic sentence rather than a sub-heading. Response: We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the important reference to patterns in our manuscript composition and the helpful suggestions for improvement. In the light of this valuable advice, we have amended the subheading on p. 19. In addition, we have checked all subheadings of the manuscript for comprehensibility and necessity as well as embedding in the overall text. Accordingly, we have adapted the headings on p. 3, p. 5, p. 6, pp. 11-12, p. 15, pp. 18-21, and p. 26, or revised them for better comprehensibility. We also used the consultation of professional language editing services for this purpose. ___________________________________________________________________________ Similarly, the "Support Structure Awareness" section on p. 20 is only 2 sentences long. This should be revised. Response: In response to this constructive observation, we consolidated two paragraphs from the "Exploratory analyses" section. The aforementioned subsection is now presented under the subheading "Experiences of discrimination and awareness of support structures" (p. 20). ___________________________________________________________________________ Discussion section is strong and use of important concepts/terms such as a continuum view of violence and use of diversity domains are a strength of the paper. Response: We greatly appreciate the positive evaluation of Reviewer 1 regarding the discussion section. ___________________________________________________________________________ Interventions listed on pp. 25-26 are important. I suggest the sub-heading is revised to highlight this is a section focused on recommended interventions. Response: We thank Reviewer 1 for underscoring the importance of the proposed interventions and have revised the subheading on p. 26 accordingly. ___________________________________________________________________________ I also suggest a table or bulleted list to highlight the important takeaway suggestions for readers who are in a position to implement such interventions to clearly be able to see and remember them. Currently they could easily be lost during a quick read. Response: We agree with Reviewer 1's comment and thank you for pointing this out and proposing helpful solutions. In fact, the proposed interventions may not have received enough attention in the original discussion section. We have therefore decided to include Table 4 on p. 28, where we clearly present our intervention recommendations. Here we further differentiate the intervention approaches listed in the body text according to the categories “Preventative measures” and “Support service utilization” in order to further improve the overview. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Reviewer #2: The article is particularly interesting. However, in several places in it there are portions of text that could be merged to make the text uniform. Response: We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the overall positive evaluation of our manuscript. ___________________________________________________________________________ To follow your suggestion to improve the structure of the text, we have used the services of a professional academic language editor. This has resulted in rewording and shortening of overly long and incomprehensible sentences or paragraphs throughout. We hope that this will improve the readability and consistency of the text. Likewise, the titles would need to be reworded to make them more appealing. Response: We have revised (sub)titles in line with the comments of both reviewers: On p. 3, p. 5, p. 6, pp. 11-12, p. 15, pp. 18-21, and p. 26, we have either shortened titles and/or subjected them to a further critical reading and rewording in order to make them more appealing and better embedded in the narrative flow of the manuscript. ___________________________________________________________________________ Finally, I recommend a re-reading of the entire text to correct the remaining typos. Response: We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for their careful reading of our manuscript. We have thoroughly proofread the entire text for typos. The corrections can be found in the marked-up version of the resubmitted manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315089.r002
21 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Vincenzo Auriemma, Editor Turning the spotlight: Hostile behavior in creative higher education and links to mental health in marginalized groups. PONE-D-24-25065R1 Dear Dr. Fischer, 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, Vincenzo Auriemma Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315089.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Vincenzo Auriemma, Editor PONE-D-24-25065R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fischer, 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. Vincenzo Auriemma Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315089.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 .