Population interest in and adequacy of the information on the safety of antineoplastic agents in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia

Seira Climent-Ballester; Pedro García-Salom; Javier Sanz-Valero

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320773

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 17, 2024
17 Aug 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r001
23 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Omar Enzo Santangelo, Editor PONE-D-24-35201Population interest in and adequacy of the information on the safety of antineoplastic agents in the Spanish edition of WikipediaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sanz-Valero, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Authors, The manuscript needs major revisions. Respond point by point to the requests of the reviewers. Kind regards. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 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, Omar Enzo Santangelo 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. In your Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data. [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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: The initiative of the study is interesting in terms of therapeutic education but methodologically the work can be improved. The fact that the study measures a negative correlation between the use of anticancer drugs and visits to Wikipedia pages does not seem enlightening to me. It is enough that over the years the referencing of websites changes for other 'Vidal' type websites to appear first in the results of the 'google' type web search before Wikipedia. So naturally Wikipedia will be less consulted. Then the application of regression models (the nature of which we do not know) and correlation on such a small number of observations does not seem appropriate to me. Reviewer #2: The manuscript was writtien on a very important topic where Web 2.0 became the main source of information in general, and the medical topics in specific. However, the authors heve to check that mentioning of the compund term prior is abbreviation to avoid readers' misleading (example, "AA" in rhe abstract). Introduction section: There must be indication for recent data from IARC, as a legitimate source of updated statistics, where the number of neoplasms-related deaths became 10 million in 2022 (Refer to: https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/new-report-on-global-cancer-burden-in-2022-by-world-region-and-human-development-level/) and the authors must avoid the use of referral references. Besides, several paragraphs at the introduction section have no referral to any citated references, and thus the quality of those discussed information is questionable (paragraphs 2,5 and 9) Materials and Methods: the number of topics being collected among popular Wikipedia pages were missing. The ethical aspects must be declared at first prior going into further details of the study methodology. The data quality as well as the statistical analysis must be performed by at least two authros / researchers in a blinded data selection, and handling the statistical analysis va validated software (as SPSS, STATA, R studio, SAS) was not clearly discussed in depth. However, the authors must provide further information regarding how CIMA information center can be used as legitimate source and what type of validity being applied in the center to ensure its data accuracy. Discussion: According to FDA Pregnancy category and drugs -related risks information, generally chemotherapy and AA in specific are considered category X medication; where studies in animals or humans have demonstrated positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience, and the risks involved in use of the drug in pregnant women clearly outweigh potential benefits. Thus, no such information regarding the use of AA in pregnant and breast feeding, or its impact on infants exposure. ****** 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: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r002
Revision 1
20 Jan 2025 Author Response Point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments The authors thank the corrections and comments made. Suggestions for improvement provided by reviewers and editorial, have seemed us to be very appropriate and useful. We are confident that they have contributed to improving our article. All modifications or additions made are listed in this document and are brightly-colored in the text of the manuscript for your easy viewing. Revisions carried out Reviewer #1 The initiative of the study is interesting in terms of therapeutic education but methodologically the work can be improved. The fact that the study measures a negative correlation between the use of anticancer drugs and visits to Wikipedia pages does not seem enlightening to me. It is enough that over the years the referencing of websites changes for other 'Vidal' type websites to appear first in the results of the 'google' type web search before Wikipedia. So naturally Wikipedia will be less consulted. Indeed, the results may change over the years and, therefore, this study should be updated. However, when selecting the Web 2.0 reference, we took into account the current results, as indicated in references 11 and 12, where we can find Wikipedia in position 7 in Similarweb and in position 5 in Semrush. On the other hand, we could have studied the results offered by Google Trends, but these are offered in percentage of search (relative search volume) with respect to the maximum search volume at a given time and, consequently, the relative search volume will fluctuate depending on the period studied. Consequently, it was decided to use the data from Wikipedia as this is real data on the number of searches and does not vary. As we consider that this explanation may be interesting, in accordance with the reviewer's warning, we have included it in the limitations of the study. Then the application of regression models (the nature of which we do not know) and correlation on such a small number of observations does not seem appropriate to me. We have modified the data analysis section in the methodology, explaining better the use of linear regression models and we have added a sentence in the results explaining, also, the data of the association between the consumption of antineoplastic drugs and the queries made to their terms in the Spanish edition of the Wikipedia. Reviewer #2 The manuscript was written on a very important topic where Web 2.0 became the main source of information in general, and the medical topics in specific. However, the authors have to check that mentioning of the compound term prior is abbreviation to avoid readers' misleading (example, "AA" in the abstract). We had forgotten to define the abbreviation AA in the abstract. However, taking advantage of the reviewer's recommendation, it is true that the abbreviation AA can lead to confusion as it is the abbreviation generally used for acetylsalicylic acid. On the other hand, neither the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) nor the EMA (European Medicines Agency) use a universally standardised abbreviation for antineoplastic agents. However, a review of the scientific literature has shown that ANP is the most commonly used abbreviation. We have therefore changed the abbreviation AA to ANP. Introduction section: There must be indication for recent data from IARC, as a legitimate source of updated statistics, where the number of neoplasms-related deaths became 10 million in 2022 (Refer to: https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/new-report-on-global-cancer-burden-in-2022-by-world-region-and-human-development-level/) and the authors must avoid the use of referral references. Besides, several paragraphs at the introduction section have no referral to any citated references, and thus the quality of those discussed information is questionable (paragraphs 2,5 and 9) − The first paragraph of the introduction has been modified taking into account the bibliographical citation provided by the reviewer. − References have been added to the paragraphs indicated by the reviewer. Materials and Methods: the number of topics being collected among popular Wikipedia pages were missing. In the section ‘ANP and Wikipedia pages studied’, the topics studied have been specified both in terms of consumption and in Wikipedia. The ethical aspects must be declared at first prior going into further details of the study methodology. − The section on ethical issues has been placed at the beginning of the methodology, after the study design, as requested by the reviewer. The data quality as well as the statistical analysis must be performed by at least two authors / researchers in a blinded data selection, and handling the statistical analysis va validated software (as SPSS, STATA, R studio, SAS) was not clearly discussed in depth. − How the data was collected and the correction of discrepancies has been included in the ‘Data analysis’ section. However, the authors must provide further information regarding how CIMA information center can be used as legitimate source and what type of validity being applied in the center to ensure its data accuracy. − CIMA is the database of medicines produced by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS). The AEMPS as a state agency attached to the Ministry of Health is a reference entity in Spain in charge of protecting public health through the strict regulation of medicines and health products. The AEMPS is considered highly reliable within the Spanish and European healthcare system as it operates under strict national and European regulations, and its procedures are aligned with the standards of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Therefore, its data have a high degree of reliability. − A paragraph explaining CIMA's reliability has been included in the methodology. Discussion: According to FDA Pregnancy category and drugs -related risks information, generally chemotherapy and AA in specific are considered category X medication; where studies in animals or humans have demonstrated positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience, and the risks involved in use of the drug in pregnant women clearly outweigh potential benefits. Thus, no such information regarding the use of AA in pregnant and breast feeding, or its impact on infants exposure. Indeed, there is no information on the use of antineoplastic agents in pregnant and breastfeeding women, nor on their impact on infant exposure, since being category X the risk clearly outweighs the possible benefits, they are not used = no data. To further clarify this information, we have expanded the paragraph in the discussion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r003
7 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Omar Enzo Santangelo, Editor PONE-D-24-35201R1Population interest in and adequacy of the information on the safety of antineoplastic agents in the Spanish edition of WikipediaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sanz-Valero, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Authors, the manuscript needs minor revisions, please respond point by point to the reviewers' requests. Kind regards ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 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, Omar Enzo Santangelo 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. [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 Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #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. 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: ...................................................................................................... Reviewer #2: I think that the authors have fulfilled and well-explained all peer-reviewers remarks and notes on the basis of clinical and scientific tracks, and made all the recommended corrections punctually. However, some efforts to change the abbreviation AA to ANP in the abstract section (at "Mansucript draft; page # 1) are required as being applied on the whole manuscript. ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r004
Revision 2
21 Feb 2025 Author Response Point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments First of all, we would like to thank you for the new review of our manuscript. All changes made to this document are highlighted in bright colors in the text of the manuscript so you can easily see them. Revisions carried out All bibliographic references have been thoroughly reviewed, and no errors have been found nor have any retracted articles been cited. Reviewer #2 I think that the authors have fulfilled and well-explained all peer-reviewers remarks and notes on the basis of clinical and scientific tracks, and made all the recommended corrections punctually. However, some efforts to change the abbreviation AA to ANP in the abstract section (at "Mansucript draft; page # 1) are required as being applied on the whole manuscript. In accordance with the reviewer's comments, all abbreviations 'AA' have been corrected and replaced with 'ANP'. Previously, they were highlighted in yellow, and in this latest review, they have been highlighted in green. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - MR.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r005
25 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Omar Enzo Santangelo, Editor Population interest in and adequacy of the information on the safety of antineoplastic agents in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia PONE-D-24-35201R2 Dear Dr. Sanz-Valero, 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, Omar Enzo Santangelo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Omar Enzo Santangelo, Editor PONE-D-24-35201R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sanz-Valero, 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. Omar Enzo Santangelo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320773.r007

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 .