https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2804-6487
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 12, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-34061Mammography screening: eliciting the voices of informed citizensPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jensen, 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 Apr 02 2023 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:
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, Felix G. Rebitschek 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, Thank you very much for your contribution! I ask you to base your efforts significantly on the comments by Reviewer 1 and look forward to your revision. Sincerely, Felix Rebitschek [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ********** 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: The paper addresses an important topic, public engagement in decision-making about mammography screening. The intervention study is elaborate and yields relevant results about the preferences of informed laypeople regarding mortality reduction and overdiagnosis, the support for the continuation of mammography screening program in Denmark and the changes in knowledge after a deliberative polling intervention. However, in my view the paper needs some revisions regarding the presentation of the study rationale, method and some results: 1) One major point is that the intervention study has already been published in 2021 in previous paper in PLOS One (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258869 ). The results in the present paper were not previously published, and also all figures and tables are original, this is all fine. However, the descriptions of the rationale of the study and most importantly of the intervention are too short in the present paper. E.g., the contents of the video and its duration are not described, the procedure of the deliberative polling day and the dependent measures are only very briefly summarized. The fact that the participants also received a fact sheet in addition to the video is only mentioned in the 2001 paper, not in the present paper. The authors refer to the 2001 paper several times in the methods section (p. 5ff.), however in my view also the present paper needs more details on the intervention and the measures to be interpretable on its own. As the results are being interpreted as effects of the intervention, the intervention and dependent variables need to be explained more precisely in the present paper. 2) The introduction section is relatively short and has some gaps; in my view, the following aspects need to be added: a) a definition of deliberative polling (should be moved from p. 5 in the Method section to the Introduction), b) a paragraph on prior research about how to communicate evidence about mammography screening, c) a summary of prior research with regard to hypotheses 2 and 3. Also, the introduction does not refer to the study of the authors from 2021. Some relevant results of the study are currently presented in the methods section (p. 7) and should be moved to the introduction. 3) Results I: Effect sizes should be described for all statistical tests, which is currently not the case. 4) Results II: Table 2 was partly unclear to me and should be clarified. E.g., do the correlation coefficients for the opinion items reflect correlations with change in recommendation or with change in knowledge (see title of table 2)? Also, I believe that the analysis of relative importance needs its own table or at least additional information; the percentage of relative importance with regard to the determination coefficients cannot be fully interpreted without showing the determination coefficients (and more information about these multiple regressions should be made available in the supplemental materials). 5) Discussion I: Effect sizes should be taken into account when discussing the effects. 6) Discussion II: The discussion focuses on the unexpected result for H2. Some of the alternative explanations might be plausible for H2, but seem less plausible given that H1 was confirmed at the same time (e.g. if participants used gut-feelings instead of reflecting on knowledge (p. 12, line 23), why did still many of them change their recommendation?). Thus, I would recommend to reflect more on the combination of the results and also to elaborate a bit more on the results of the other hypotheses. The discussion of H2 could also be shortened a bit by moving some of the new results presented here to the results section. 7) Discussion III: The section about limitations should be extended by the following points: What are the implications of a) the lack of a control group and b) the decision to use a representative sample of men and women, but not a representative sample of women only? Most previous studies studied women’s perceptions of mammography screening. 8) Conclusion: The conclusion currently reflects only parts of the main findings of the study with regard to the three hypotheses. Lines 11/12 are not clear to me – why does the balance between benefits and harms seem less important to the recommendations of informed lay people? The results of the study pointed into another direction. Minor points: - Hypothesis 2 is sometimes about knowledge gain (p. 4, 12), sometimes about change in knowledge (p. 9, Table 2), which is not necessarily equivalent. It would be helpful for readers if one of the two expressions would be used consistently when discussing H2. - Descriptive data about the changes in knowledge, as well as absolute levels of knowledge, is currently missing and could be added as a table in the supplementary materials. This could also be helpful for interpreting the results of H2. - Conclusion: The framing of the result of H3 is interesting: “Participants’ recommendations about the continuation of mammography screening did not, to a large extent, reflect their preferences regarding mortality reduction and overdiagnosis in the programme.” (p. 16) vs. “In line with our third hypothesis, recommendations were more in line with preferences regarding mortality reduction and overdiagnosis after information and deliberation compared with before.” (p. 12). Of course, both statements are correct. But which is the main point that should be included in the abstract and in the conclusions? Personally, I would prefer that both aspects are presented equitably. - P. 3, 22-24: Some more current studies should be added. - References [23] and [34] are very general and should be replaced with more specific references that are a bit closer to the present context of medical decision-making. - A reference is missing for the theory of cognitive dissonance (p. 13, line 3). - S1_Fig.: I would recommend to use bar charts instead of pie charts. - S2_Table: Absolute frequencies should be added (e.g., number of participants educated or working in the healthcare sector). Reviewer #2: Very interesting findings and a complex intervention! One question: On page 9 you write: "Learning (change in knowledge index) was not correlated to a change in recommendation, correlation 0.03 (95%CI -0.19-12 0.24) (Table 2). On the contrary, a change in opinion towards viewing the harms of screening carrying more weight than the benefits, was correlated to a change in recommendation towards being more skeptical learning was not correlated to a change in recommendation." In our experience (not research!) this is not an contradiction as information (e.g. statistical facts) has very different meanings for individuals. That is how decisions aids work (give information + als "what does this mean fo me?) Maybe ist is possible to summarise in short (e.g. in the abstract) what made people change their recommendation (if it is not knowlege and if the opion items had relatively little importance). Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper „Mammography screening: eliciting the voices of informed citizens“ Aim of the present study was to examine the public’s recommendations about the continuation of mammography screening and the preferences regarding acceptable rates of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis. For the public involvement, an online Deliberative Poll was held in Denmark in 2020 and outcoemes were assessed on four time points. Results on knowledge and opinion items have already been published in PLoS One in 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258869). This publication is referenced in the present manuscript (reference 31) in order to refer to the methodological approach as well as previous results. However, these references do not make it clear that the present manuscript is a secondary analysis, or at least a further analysis of the data already published. If it seems appropriate to submit more than one publication for a study, the authors should describe and justify this procedure transparently. Apart from that, the subject is important and the method for public involvement is innovative. The results are relevant and could form the basis for further research into the relationship between knowledge, attitudes and recommendations for screening. Knowledge on these associations (or the lack of them) could also be important for interventions to enhance individual informed decisions. In the following, find some smaller comments on the manuscript and supplementing materials: - Page 15, lines 12 ff: The attribution of the descriptions in the text to the items and results in Table 2 is not entirely clear. Possibly the effects could be represented here, as in line 11. - Table S2 is introduced only in the discussion. This is rather unusual, and it would be better to take up only results that have already been presented in advance in the discussion. - The arrows and numbers in Fig. 1 should be explained in the legend. - Fig. 2: To avoid framing of data, the axes should always go up to 100 in the representation of percent. - Fig. S1: In the current display, the assignment of the graphics to the times is missing. ********** 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: Ulla Sladek Reviewer #3: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-22-34061R1Mammography screening: eliciting the voices of informed citizensPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jensen, 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 the light of earlier revising and addressing the points of the reviewers, it may be another effort to process the comments below. But major concerns need to be addressed for continuing with the manuscript. Some of them may be solved by just better explaining the details or the thoughts behind.============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 2023 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:
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, Felix G. Rebitschek Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Majors • What is the research question? o Do the authors want to inform about potential advantages and effects by the specific method Deliberative Poll? Is it a paper about a method? Then, more justification is needed about why selecting the mammography case? o Do the authors want to inform an issue in breast cancer guideline development, because the study reveals neglected attitudes of informed citizens that from now on can be used? Is it a paper about qualitative insights of mammography beliefs and attitudes in a Western population? • What is a public’s recommendation? What is the role of the citizens exactly? Why they give recommendations to whom – is there any real-world equivalent? o What is the exact subject of the study – an age-stratified population-based mammography screening without risk assessment? Is it a an offer, obligatory, biannualy, yearly, age-range? This clearly affects the interpretation of the study – I could read it off from figure/table captions, but this is too central. • What is the argument for applying the method? This needs much more argumentation o “[other methods’] limited representativeness of the wider population” – with 100 people the authors do not reach population representativeness, so what is meant by that (please define in which way the author’s sample is representative)? The generalisation of a convenience sample is negligible if it is about attitudes. Is the point about a stratified sampling to assure that certain vulnerable subgroups are included? How do the authors show the “representativeness” advantage? o “range of arguments” is also unclear. There is some plausibility that the authors reveal more aspects when they do qualitative research with 100 instead of 10 participants, but why not 20 or 30? What makes this method reveal sufficiently broader arguments and do the authors have evidence for that (references)? Particularly in the light of so much interesting qualitative research with 10-15 participants… Later I found out that you do not provide qualitative insights, so we are talking about a cohort survey study. • The third hypothesis requires more background, because the authors want to compare two flying bullets: a changing recommendation-related judgment (an expression of preference) and an evaluation of a required minimum benefit and maximum harm. The authors here touch the fields of preference elicitation and shared decision-making and should provide more conceptual ground on the key-strength of the described study: linking option knowledge with underlying preferences and final intentions/recommendations. What was done in the supplementary figure on overdiagnoses should have be done on the full knowledge, the most aggregated preference assessment that the authors have, with recommendation. • Method section: o With regard to your representativeness argument, information on recruitment needs to be extended here: sampling, frame, inclusion/exclusion criteria, participation rates, risk of a topical bias – how were candidates approached? Avoid the bold statements (p.7,l12-19; not only because of the age range 18-70 and the online study requirements, but also because in crossed cells the impressive alignment with the general Danish population (on the main factors) does not hold; even for crossed cells of age x education x gender 100 people are not sufficient) o please restructure into distinct paragraphs for study material and procedure o why the separate analyses for the knowledge on overdiagnosis and mortality reduction, but not on the other eleven items? o Provide more information about the used measures here in a separate measures paragraph (for instance the preference assessments, such as acceptable overdiagnosis) o Please provide the full items including false options for knowledge (beyond the supplementary reprint) --> What is the reference for the ground truth and for the range that you scored correct in knowledge, numerical? --> What is the reliability of this assessment? • Results o Proportions of recommendation statements should be accompanied by information about uncertainty around those estimates o Fig. 2: --> I do not understand the mortality-reduction item and I doubt that laypeople could so. Is this a problem of an English translation? --> Have you binned the responses or was it multiple choice? --> The formatting needs to be checked against PLOSONE standards --> Please insert Confidence intervals or any other indication of uncertainty around the survey estimates. o Table 1. --> Is it [%] in each column? --> A dominance analysis with such a small sample over so many items requires information about what is the uncertainty around the estimate of relative importance for each item • Discussion: o limitations by your method needs to more elaboration, starting with the generalisability of your findings to which population o what is role of modality for deliberate polls – offline, hybrid, online? o please elaborate on the methodological point of equal considerations of input by women among your participants (who are or will be offered mammography screening) and other participants (e.g., men) in determining a public’s consideration – within participatory research literature distinguishing those who are directly affected by a subject and those who are not • Please rewrite the abstract which cannot be understood by a reader without the authors‘ background (what is a recommendation by laypeople for whom, type of mammography screening, what is the method, representativeness in which way, result focus on the method’s contribution) • Language editing, please let a native lecturer go over the manuscript which contains many types of errors (e.g., p.3, l.14 incomprehensible; which evaluation?; p.4,l.22) and unusual expressions Minors • Please provide the correct permanent video link • Why is public engagement in decision-making a way to address different preferences of experts? • What are “community values”? • What is opinion stability and opinion consistency – difference? References? Do we talk about attitudes? • Please check for consistent capitalisation (different methods)? • How could the people from the survey assemble physically – or was it fully online? • What is “Citizen’s Juries”? • How did you select “neutral” moderators? • Please move derived hypothesis (p.9.l17-20) up to the introduction • What does mean: “an informed recommendation is RELATED to preferences” ? informed decisions, for instance, are defined by an alignment of the benefit-harm evaluation of options, option knowledge and the chosen option (Theresa Marteau) • Direct references for “Mammography screening is controversial” • Check for an update of Mammography screening, e.g. Germany IQWIG recommended extension to new age groups • Ref. for benefit overestimation worth to consider: Gigerenzer, G., Mata, J., & Frank, R. (2009). Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101(17), 1216-1220. • Please provide a reference for P.6.,l. 20-22 – consider moving the sentence to the introduction of deliberate poll • P.10, l.1-3. The sentence is unclear to me • Is correlation 0.03 => r = .03 (please check results descriptions against APA/PLOSONE) • Could you please restructure the supplementary table about recommendation-continuing: here I read 3 agree at t3 with “continue” although they fall under “preferences matching with a recommendation not to continue”…? unclear [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ********** [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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-22-34061R2Mammography screening: eliciting the voices of informed citizensPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jensen, 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 Jun 03 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:
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, Felix G. Rebitschek 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: Dear Authors, Thank you very much for the extensive revision! Only a few points remain: - In Methods, under questionnaire, please include the item formulation used to assess the participants' view on what they considered to be an acceptable mortality reduction from mammography screening. - Table 1 should follow the PLOSONE guidelines and the font size be equal to the manuscript text. Some response options reported in Table 1 are put in one line, others in separate lines. - On P. 10 (without mark-ups), from lines 6-7, there is a break. - Regarding my concern about the robustness of the dominance analyses, and in the light of the significance of the correlation coefficents for change in knowledge index and change in recommendation, it might be more comprehensible for the reader to not communicate importance for items with non-significant correlations [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-22-34061R3Mammography screening: eliciting the voices of informed citizensPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jensen, 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 Oct 21 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:
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, Felix G. Rebitschek 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: Dear Authors, In response to a discussion with both the editorial board and a fourth reviewer on the dominance analyses performed in your study, finally, the following information should be added: - provide a lot more details regarding the procedure employed for their DA, "in particular the regression models [..][that] preceded the DAs" and the parameters used to determine the ranking of coefficients. - The reviewer notices "whether the authors are referring to general, conditional, or complete". My general point is the following: Please consider the update in terms of a reproducibility perspective from potential readers. [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 #4: (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 #4: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 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 #4: (No Response) ********** 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 #4: (No Response) ********** 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 #4: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #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. |
| Revision 4 |
|
Mammography screening: eliciting the voices of informed citizens PONE-D-22-34061R4 Dear Dr. Jensen, 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, Felix G. Rebitschek Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-34061R4 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jensen, 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. Felix G. Rebitschek Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .