Perception of four intellectual and developmental disabilities based on search engine and news portrayal

Lillian J. Droscha; Sophia Chung; Zoe Li-Khan; Ashley Scott; Eric Rubenstein

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316928

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 12, 2024
5 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Robert Didden, Editor PONE-D-24-07520Perception of Four Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Based on Search Engine and News PortrayalPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Droscha, 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 Dec 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, Robert Didden 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 amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary). 4. 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. 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. [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 article on an under researched area 1. On page 11 the authors do nor explain why they have chosen the word "inspirational"? It is nor clear to me why this term was chosen 2. On page 12 how did the authors arrive at the question where only one question is measuring a negative reaction (upsetting) while the other questions are positive (e.g. doing activities, being capable etc. 3. On page 17 the authors state that "an overall more negative portrayal and perception of Prader-Willi syndrome, compared to Cerebral Palsy, Down syndrome, and Angelman syndrome" On page 18 however they say that " search engine results from Angelman syndrome are perceived more negatively than Down syndrome". this seems contradictory. Perhaps the authors should avoid arbitrary classifications such as "common" and "uncommon" which appear a little arbitrary given that only 4 syndromes featured in this study making such generalisations less credible. 4. On page 19 the authors state "Findings show that increased awareness of the social model and disability perspectives can improve physician care for patients and colleagues with disabilities". This is an important statement and perhaps needs more emphasis. ****** 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: Ashok Roy ******** [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.0316928.r001
Revision 1
16 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear PLOS ONE Editors: We thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive feedback. We have addressed their concerns and believe we have a stronger and more impactful paper. The summary is below. 1. On page 11 the authors do nor explain why they have chosen the word "inspirational"? It is not clear to me why this term was chosen. Thank you for this observation. We have addressed this point at the top of page 6 in the manuscript. In short, we chose to ask about perception of images as inspirational due to the common perception of disabled people as “inspirational,” even when doing simple, mundane tasks. This perception, while seemingly positive on the surface to a non-disabled person, feeds into the placing of the burden of access on the individual, as in the medical model of disability (20), by implying a physical or symbolic deficit that must be overcome (16). 2. On page 12 how did the authors arrive at the question where only one question is measuring a negative reaction (upsetting) while the other questions are positive (e.g. doing activities, being capable etc. We wanted to maximize impact of each question and minimize potential response time. Therefore, we opted to focus more on the positive words and use fewer negative words in our framing. We wanted to use a possible antithesis of the “inspirational” concept to understand if the presence of images as inspirational would yield a perception of images as “not upsetting,” or if these perceptions could be found in tandem. 3. On page 17 the authors state that "an overall more negative portrayal and perception of Prader-Willi syndrome, compared to Cerebral Palsy, Down syndrome, and Angelman syndrome" On page 18 however they say that " search engine results from Angelman syndrome are perceived more negatively than Down syndrome". this seems contradictory. Perhaps the authors should avoid arbitrary classifications such as "common" and "uncommon" which appear a little arbitrary given that only 4 syndromes featured in this study making such generalisations less credible. Thank you for this point. Conditions like Prader-Willi syndrome and Angelman syndrome are classified as “rare diseases” by organizations like NIH whereas Down syndrome and CP are not. Nevertheless, our language is imprecise. We have changed common and uncommon to more and less prevalent. 4. On page 19 the authors state "Findings show that increased awareness of the social model and disability perspectives can improve physician care for patients and colleagues with disabilities". This is an important statement and perhaps needs more emphasis. We have added this to the abstract to stress the importance of this finding. Thank you again for your insightful comments. With these modifications, we believe our manuscript will contribute even more impactfully to the PLOS ONE community and appreciate the opportunity to resubmit. Best Regards, Lillian Droscha, MPH Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316928.r002
18 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Robert Didden, Editor Perception of Four Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Based on Search Engine and News Portrayal PONE-D-24-07520R1 Dear Dr. Droscha, 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, Robert Didden Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316928.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Robert Didden, Editor PONE-D-24-07520R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Droscha, 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 Professor Robert Didden Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316928.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 .