Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 5, 2024

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Request for revisions dated 100424.docx
Decision Letter - Muhammad Junaid Farrukh, Editor

PONE-D-24-41981Essential criteria for reporting of aromatherapy-focused research in humans: An international Delphi consensus study protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reven,

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  Feb 03 2025 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,

Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

“Ruth and Robert Kuhn Nursing Research Fund at West Virginia University”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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: Membership on the board of ARQAT”

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.

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [ARQAT Group Amanda May-Fitzgerald, Denise Joswiak, Bethany Unger]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study is very interested.

I have enquiry about:

- Have you considered focusing more on the participation of experts from countries known for their abundance of aromatic plants and essential oils?

Please explain all of abbreviations in this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: • The reviewer thanks the author for their effort. The article is well written. The delivered results are interesting both from a theoretical and practical point of view. A good paper, interesting, and is worthy of being published in this journal. However, there are some minor revisions, which must first be made. The abstract should clearly indicate the relevance of the work for international research (with number and academic percentages).

1- Introduction part is very poor, the author should support the current study with previous study and present the motivation of the current study (most of references are more than 10 years old. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110022).

2- Improve the aim of the current study and relate this aim with the abstract.

3- Figure 4 needs more discussion in the text and the author mention all compounds.

4- Please revise all abbreviation.

5- Number all section

6- Please, the author should valorize the conclusion with more details and mention the future recommendation part to help other researchers in the future.

7- The paper has several mistakes and errors. Kindly review the manuscript again.

**********

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: Yes: Abdulrazzaq Yahya Al-Khazzan

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Academic Editor comments Action/Rebuttal

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

Thank you for this specific guidance. The formatting for the manuscript and the title page have been updated.

MANUSCRIPT

Update include: Headings are fixed, Supporting information section moved to after references. Line 412

Names are updated. Documents have been renamed to reflect requirements. S1_file.docx

S2_file.docx, S3_file.docx. There are no legends as these are all files not tables or figures.

TITLE PAGE

Updated to reflect guidance in the PLOS title page document. As follows:

Direction about how to mention ARQAT in acknowledgements.

Consortia or other Group Authors• If there is a consortium or group author on your manuscript, please provide a note that describes where the full membership list is available for the readers.• The membership list can be listed in the Acknowledgments, in Supporting Information, or on the internet.• Consortia/Group authors can have affiliations, but it is not required.

Also, a separate document has been made for the title page per the guidelines found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Using this formatting, the following has been added to the author byline: Amanda May-Fitzgerald, Denise Joswiak, and Bethany Unger¶

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Ruth and Robert Kuhn Nursing Research Fund at West Virginia University”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Thank you for this correction. The following has been added to the Updated Cover Letter “Financial disclosure statement as requested: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

3. 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: Membership on the board of ARQAT”

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. Thank you for this correction. The following has been added in the cover letter: Competing interests section: 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). There are no restrictions on the sharing of data or materials.

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [ARQAT Group Amanda May-Fitzgerald, Denise Joswiak, Bethany Unger]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

By following the provided guidelines, the authors from the ARQAT have been updated. Please see #1 and revisions within the manuscript. If this is still not correct, please provide the exact phraseology or format you wish us to have because we wish to have those three authors in the byline if at all possible.

Reviewer #1 comments Reviewer #1 Rebuttal

Have you considered focusing more on the participation of experts from countries known for their abundance of aromatic plants and essential oils?

Thank you for this question. We have not focused on experts from countries that produce. Our review of the literature was focused on those countries where aromatherapy-focused studies were being published and specifically on authors of manuscripts where the quality of reporting of the aromatherapy aspects of the studies was discussed and often considered not clear and complete.

Please explain all of abbreviations in this manuscript.

Please see Abbreviation_List, this is an extra document. We are unable to determine where the list is to be put in the manuscript layout. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

Reviewer #2 comments Reviewer #2 rebuttal

The delivered results are interesting both from a theoretical and practical point of view. This is a protocol paper. There are no delivered results. We are questioning whether this Reviewer’s comments pertain to this protocol paper?

The abstract should clearly indicate the relevance of the work for international research (with number and academic percentages).

It is unclear what “with number and academic percentages” means, or to which part of the abstract this comment relates.

1- Introduction part is very poor, the author should support the current study with previous study and present the motivation of the current study This is a protocol. There are no previous studies. We have presented the “motivation” very clearly and succinctly.

most of references are more than 10 years old. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110022).

This is not true. We have only two references which are more than 10 years old, and the attached URL is irrelevant.

2- Improve the aim of the current study and relate this aim with the abstract.

How could the aim be made clearer?

3- Figure 4 needs more discussion in the text and the author mention all compounds.

The word “figure” occurs only once in our manuscript, and relates to the PRISMA diagram for inclusion of systematic reviews. We have no Figure 4, and there are certainly no “compounds” mentioned anywhere in our protocol.

4- Please revise all abbreviation. Please see Abbreviation_List, this is an extra document.

We are unable to determine where the list is to be put in the manuscript layout. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/ PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

5- Number all section Within the manuscript direction document, there are no numbers for sections.

We are using the following from the editor: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

6- Please, the author should valorize the conclusion with more details and mention the future recommendation part to help other researchers in the future.

What does “valorize the conclusion” mean? As this is a protocol, it doesn’t make sense to include more details, as we haven’t completed the study yet. And there is no point in making future recommendations in a protocol paper.

7- The paper has several mistakes and errors. Kindly review the manuscript again.

This is incorrect.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_rebuttal_review.docx
Decision Letter - Muhammad Junaid Farrukh, Editor

Essential criteria for reporting of aromatherapy-focused research in humans: An international Delphi consensus study protocol

PONE-D-24-41981R1

Dear Marian Reven

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,

Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Junaid Farrukh, Editor

PONE-D-24-41981R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reven,

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. Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

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 .