The causal effect of workplace violence on mental health and work-related outcomes: a cross-sectional study using propensity score matching

Javier A. Flores-Cohaila; Brayan Miranda-Chavez; Cesar Copaja-Corzo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321845

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 11, 2024
11 Jul 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321845.r001
19 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Heba E. El-Gazar, Editor PONE-D-24-28436Identifying the causal effect of workplace violence on depressive symptoms, burnout, sleep problems, work-life balance and intention to quit in Peruvian physicians and nurses: a cross-sectional study using propensity score matchingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Copaja-Corzo, 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: I have reviewed the comments from Reviewer 1, including the suggestion to cite a specific reference. While the reference appears relevant to the manuscript, I have ensured that it is clearly communicated to the authors as optional, in alignment with PLOS ONE’s guidelines. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 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, Heba E. El-Gazar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file "S2_R_Studio_Script.R". Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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 manuscript addresses a critical issue in healthcare settings—workplace violence (WV) and its impact on mental health and work-related outcomes among healthcare professionals. The study is well-conducted, employing robust statistical techniques to draw causal inferences from observational data, making it a valuable contribution to the literature. However, there are areas where the manuscript can be strengthened, particularly in contextualization, methodological detail, and discussion. Key Strengths 1. The topic is timely and highly relevant, especially given the mental health challenges exacerbated by workplace violence in healthcare. 2. The use of propensity score matching (PSM) is a notable strength, as it enhances the causal inference capabilities of the study. 3. The manuscript is comprehensive in addressing multiple outcomes, including depressive symptoms, burnout, sleep problems, work-life balance, and turnover intentions. ________________________________________ Weaknesses and Areas for Improvement 1. Introduction • Contextualization: The introduction could better contextualize why workplace violence is particularly prevalent in Peru. Although it briefly mentions South American perspectives, expanding on cultural and systemic factors unique to Peru (e.g., healthcare infrastructure, socio-political issues) would enhance the relevance. • Literature Gap: While the introduction does well to outline the general impact of WV, it could benefit from citing recent studies that cover broader work environments and settings, helping the reader understand the global context of WV. • Suggested Studies for Inclusion: 1. "Mistreatment of nurses by patients and its impact on their caring behaviors: The roles of psychological detachment and supervisor positive gossip" – This paper can contribute to understanding how WV influences caring behaviors in different healthcare systems. 2. "The role of psychological ownership in linking decent work to nurses' vigor at work" – Relevant for highlighting the effect of ownership and decent work conditions, which may influence resilience against WV. 2. Methods • Detailed Explanation of Variables: The manuscript could benefit from a more comprehensive description of the variables, particularly the independent variable (WV). Clarifying the criteria for categorizing different types of WV would strengthen the transparency and reproducibility of the study. • Justification for Using PSM: Although PSM is a strong methodological choice, explaining why it was chosen over other methods (e.g., instrumental variables) would provide clarity. Additionally, detailing the robustness checks for the PSM model would strengthen confidence in the findings. • Ethics: The ethics statement would benefit from a mention of how WV data were anonymized, especially given the sensitive nature of the information. • Limitations in Data Collection: Addressing any limitations in the secondary dataset (e.g., potential biases in the survey questions related to WV) would provide a more balanced perspective. 3. Results • Results Presentation: While the results are comprehensive, adding summary tables to break down the effects of WV on specific outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms versus work-life balance) would enhance clarity. This is especially useful for readers who may not be familiar with PSM techniques. • Qualitative Insights: Given the complex nature of WV, consider adding qualitative insights or hypothetical case examples. For instance, how does experiencing WV potentially influence a healthcare worker’s intention to quit versus burnout? 4. Discussion • Comparative Analysis: While the discussion addresses global comparisons, it could benefit from a deeper examination of the cultural context in South America and how it influences WV’s prevalence and impact. Additionally, comparing the findings with those from other high-risk professions (e.g., police, education) might provide additional insights. • Causal Implications: Although PSM provides some causal inference, the discussion could further emphasize that cross-sectional designs inherently limit causal claims. • Suggested Studies for Inclusion: 1. "Decent work and ethical ideologies of nurses—A multicenter cross-sectional study" – This paper could reinforce discussions about work-life balance and ethical considerations. 2. "How Decent Work Influences Internal Whistleblowing Intentions in Nurses" – This study can help explore how WV influences not only turnover intentions but also ethical behaviors within the workplace. 5. Limitations and Future Research • Acknowledgment of Cross-Sectional Limitations: Emphasizing the inherent limitations of cross-sectional designs and the inability to establish true causality would strengthen the manuscript’s transparency. • Further Research: Suggesting longitudinal studies to track WV’s effects over time would provide a more robust basis for intervention development. Additionally, exploring qualitative studies to understand the lived experiences of healthcare workers dealing with WV could provide richer insights. 6. Language and Formatting • Language: Several sections of the manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading to enhance readability and eliminate grammatical errors. • Formatting: Consistency in terminology (e.g., “workplace violence” versus “WV”) and uniform formatting of statistical terms (e.g., using “95% CI” uniformly) would improve clarity. Reviewer #2:** Peer Review Comments Identifying the causal effect of workplace violence on depressive symptoms, burnout, sleep problems, work-life balance and intention to quit in Peruvian physicians and nurses: a cross-sectional study using propensity score matching Javier A. Flores-Cohaila1 , Brayan Miranda-Chavez2 , Cesar Copaja-Corzo3* Sn Comments The authors attempt to identify the causal effect of workplace violence on depressive symptoms, burnout, sleep problems, work-life balance and intention to quit in Peruvian physicians and nurses: a secondary analysis of the 2016 National Healthcare Satisfaction Survey in Peru was conducted and Poisson regression models adjusting for all covariates were employed . Consider the following comments below in each section. Abstract 1 Title is too long, it should not exceed more than 14 words. Title should be concise, comprehensive, and clear. 2 The abstract provides a clear overview of the study objectives, and key findings, effectively summarizing the research. Consider design, setting, sample, and tools of study in methods. 3 Abstract should not include citations or abbreviations, if possible. Although its not clear what the design and sampling method for the study. 6 The conclusion emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to address work-place violence in healthcare workforce, aligning with the study findings. Consider elaborating on the specific types of interventions that could be effective in eliminate WV. 7 The keywords are relevant and adequately represent the study focus. However, consider adding additional keywords that capture specific healthcare contexts to improve searchability Introduction 8 The introduction needs more elaborations and a comprehensive background, contextualizing the significance of your study variables. Consider briefly discussing study variables as factors influencing, antecedents, consequences and challenges faced by healthcare system. 9 Consider Integration of Theoretical Frameworks: Consider integrating relevant theoretical frameworks or models of work-place violence (e.g. Justice theory, or Frustration aggression theory) into the discussion to provide a theoretical basis for interpreting the findings and guiding future research and interventions. 10 Add briefly paragraph about significance of the study. Materials and Method 11 Consider including more details about the rationale for choosing a secondary analysis of the 2016 National Healthcare Satisfaction Survey in Peru were selected as the study location. Put research questions. 12 Consider sample size determination 13 The data collection tools and procedures are detailed, including the use of the sociodemographic survey. To enhance reproducibility, consider providing references or additional information about the validity and reliability of these instruments. Also, add years of developing and modifying this tool. 14 Ethical considerations, consider providing more details about how confidentiality was maintained during data collection and analysis. Results 15 Ensure that the tables are properly formatted and labeled for easy interpretation Discussion 17 Secondary analysis research should include a discussion of results. Restate the main research questions that guided the analysis then connect results to existing theories or literatures. Show your point of view and results of your study in discussion. Compare with previous researches. 18 Consider exploring potential contextual factors or methodological limitations that may have influenced these results, providing a more understanding of the findings. 19 However, it could benefit from expanding on the practical implications of the findings for healthcare organizations and policymakers in the region. Specifically, discussing specific strategies or interventions that could be implemented to address the identified factors contributing to transition shock would provide actionable insights for stakeholders. References 20 Use Vancouver style for writing references and in text citation in study. Also, consider language editing. Thanks for inviting me as a peer reviewer in this journal. Dr. Noura Mohamed Fadl Lecturer of Nursing Administration Department, Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University ******** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Research Article.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321845.r002
Revision 1
15 Jan 2025 Author Response Response letter Dear Editor and reviewers, in the following letter, we address each of your comments. Reviewer #1 Introduction Commentary: Contextualization: The introduction could better contextualize why workplace violence (WV) is particularly prevalent in Peru. Although it briefly mentions South American perspectives, expanding on cultural and systemic factors unique to Peru (e.g., healthcare infrastructure, socio-political issues) would enhance the relevance. Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We expanded the third paragraph to provide a nuanced overview of significant healthcare system challenges in Peru. Additionally, we refined the transition from the broader Latin American context to the specific case of Peru to strengthen coherence. Commentary: Literature Gap: While the introduction outlines the general impact of WV, it could benefit from citing recent studies that cover broader work environments and settings, helping the reader understand the global context of WV. Suggested Studies for Inclusion: 1. "Mistreatment of nurses by patients and its impact on their caring behaviors: The roles of psychological detachment and supervisor positive gossip" 2. "The role of psychological ownership in linking decent work to nurses' vigor at work" Response: We appreciate these thoughtful recommendations. Although our references already included recent systematic reviews, we decided to enrich the introduction by citing the first study mentioned, as it adds valuable insights into the global context. Methods Commentary: Detailed Explanation of Variables: The manuscript could benefit from a more comprehensive description of the variables, particularly the independent variable (WV). Clarifying the criteria for categorizing different types of WV would strengthen transparency and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for your observation. We expanded our explanation of the categorization process. Specifically, each type of WV was classified based on the original survey items. For example, in the case of "insults," respondents answered the item: "In the last 12 months, have you been the victim of insults in your workplace? (En los últimos 12 meses, ¿Usted ha sido insultado/a en su lugar de trabajo?)" Commentary: Justification for Using PSM: Although PSM is a strong methodological choice, explaining why it was chosen over other methods (e.g., instrumental variables) would provide clarity. Additionally, detailing the robustness checks for the PSM model would strengthen confidence in the findings. Response: We appreciate this insightful comment. We added a paragraph to the introduction that outlines the rationale behind choosing PSM, emphasizing its suitability for mitigating selection bias in observational data. Commentary: Ethics: The ethics statement would benefit from a mention of how WV data were anonymized, especially given the sensitive nature of the information. Response: Thank you for this important point. We revised the ethics section to specify that all data in the national survey were anonymized to protect participant confidentiality. Commentary: Limitations in Data Collection: Addressing any limitations in the secondary dataset (e.g., potential biases in the survey questions related to WV) would provide a more balanced perspective. Response: We agree with this observation and have revised the limitations section accordingly. We added: "First, we relied on a secondary dataset not designed to address our specific research questions. Although we adjusted for several confounders, some may remain unaccounted for. Second, WV was self-reported, potentially introducing bias due to social desirability or fear of repercussions." Results Commentary: Results Presentation: While the results are comprehensive, adding summary tables to break down the effects of WV on specific outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms versus work-life balance) would enhance clarity. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We added a summary table as appendix material to improve the presentation of the results. Commentary: Qualitative Insights: Given the complex nature of WV, consider adding qualitative insights or hypothetical case examples. For instance, how does experiencing WV potentially influence a healthcare worker’s intention to quit rather than burn out? Response: We fully acknowledge the value of qualitative insights. However, given the quantitative nature of our study, we propose future research that adopts a mixed-methods approach. We added: "Future studies could incorporate qualitative approaches to capture healthcare workers' experiences, as previous research has suggested that WV is often perceived as 'part of the job.'" Discussion Commentary: Comparative Analysis: While the discussion addresses global comparisons, it could benefit from a deeper examination of the cultural context in South America and how it influences WV’s prevalence and impact. Comparing the findings with those from other high-risk professions (e.g., police, education) might provide additional insights. Response: We expanded the discussion to contrast the impact of WV on the intention to quit between Peru and Switzerland, illustrating cultural and systemic differences. Commentary: Causal Implications: Although PSM provides some causal inference, the discussion could further emphasize that cross-sectional designs inherently limit causal claims. Response: We agree and have emphasized this limitation in the discussion. Suggested Studies for Inclusion: 1. "Decent work and ethical ideologies of nurses—A multicenter cross-sectional study" 2. "How Decent Work Influences Internal Whistleblowing Intentions in Nurses" Response: We integrated insights from the first suggested study to enrich our discussion on work-life balance and ethical considerations. Limitations and Future Research Commentary: Acknowledgment of Cross-Sectional Limitations: Emphasizing the inherent limitations of cross-sectional designs and the inability to establish true causality would strengthen transparency. Response: We addressed this by adding: "While our findings portray the effects of WV, longitudinal studies are necessary to capture long-term consequences, such as attrition or migration." Commentary: Further Research: Suggesting longitudinal studies to track WV’s effects over time would provide a more robust basis for intervention development. Additionally, exploring qualitative studies to understand the lived experiences of healthcare workers dealing with WV could provide richer insights. Response: We included: "Future research should adopt longitudinal designs to assess the long-term impacts of WV and incorporate qualitative methods to provide deeper insights into healthcare workers' lived experiences." Language and Formatting Commentary: Language: Several sections of the manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading to enhance readability and eliminate grammatical errors. Response: Thank you. We thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve readability and consistency. Commentary: Formatting: Consistency in terminology (e.g., “workplace violence” versus “WV”) and uniform formatting of statistical terms (e.g., using “95% CI” uniformly) would improve clarity. Response: We reviewed the entire document to ensure uniformity in terminology and statistical reporting. Reviewer #2 Abstract Commentary 1: Title: The title is too long; it should not exceed 14 words. The title should be concise, comprehensive, and clear. Response: We revised the title to ensure it is concise and informative. Commentary 2: Abstract: The abstract provides a clear overview of the study objectives and key findings, effectively summarizing the research. Consider design, setting, sample, and tools of study in methods. Response: We appreciate this feedback and have updated the methods section in the abstract to include relevant details. Commentary 3: Abstract: The abstract should not include citations or abbreviations if possible. Response: We removed all abbreviations and citations. Commentary 6: Conclusion: The conclusion emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to address WV in the healthcare workforce. Consider elaborating on the specific types of interventions that could effectively eliminate WV. Response: We expanded the conclusion to describe potential interventions, focusing on organizational policies and training programs. Commentary 7: Keywords: The keywords are relevant and adequately represent the study focus. However, consider adding additional keywords that capture specific healthcare contexts to improve searchability. Response: We added two additional keywords to enhance discoverability. Introduction Commentary 8: Background: The introduction needs more elaboration and a comprehensive background contextualizing the significance of the study variables. Response: We extended the second and third paragraphs to provide an in-depth overview of the key variables and their relevance within the healthcare system. Commentary 9: Theoretical Frameworks: Consider integrating relevant theoretical frameworks or models of workplace violence (e.g., Justice Theory, Frustration-Aggression Theory) into the discussion to provide a theoretical basis. Response: While our study focuses on outcomes rather than theory development, we incorporated relevant theoretical insights to frame the findings more robustly. Commentary 10: Significance of the Study: Add a brief paragraph about the significance of the study. Response: We included a new paragraph highlighting the study’s contribution to the field and its implications for policy and practice. Materials and Methods Commentary 11: Rationale for Data Selection: Include more details about the rationale for choosing the 2016 National Healthcare Satisfaction Survey in Peru. Response: We added: "This survey was selected due to its extensive scope, robust sampling design, and superior funding compared to primary data collection." Commentary 12: Sample Size Determination: Response: We included a new section detailing our sample size determination. Commentary 13: Data Collection Tools: Provide references or additional information about the validity and reliability of the instruments. Response: We added citations for validation studies conducted in our country. Commentary 14: Ethical Considerations: Provide more details about maintaining confidentiality during data collection and analysis. Response: We enriched the ethics section with details on data anonymization and secure handling procedures. Results Commentary 15: Tables: Ensure that tables are properly formatted and labeled for easy interpretation. Response: We reviewed and reformatted all tables, ensuring clear presentation. Discussion Commentary 17: Discussion of Results: This section should include a discussion of the results, restating the research questions and connecting the findings to existing theories and literature. Response: We revised the opening of the discussion to restate the research questions and connect our findings to the relevant literature. Commentary 18: Contextual Factors: Expand on potential contextual factors or methodological limitations that may have influenced the results. Response: We believe this is well-covered in the limitations section but added a brief mention in the discussion for emphasis. Commentary 19: Practical Implications: Discuss specific strategies or interventions for addressing WV. Response: We concluded the discussion with a paragraph highlighting practical recommendations for healthcare organizations and policymakers. References Commentary 20: Referencing Style: Use the Vancouver style for writing references and in-text citations. Response: We ensured that all references follow Vancouver style guidelines. Thank you for this observation. We consider that this new version of the manuscript has improved its quality thanks to your comments. Kind regards Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: [003]Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321845.r003
12 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Heba E. El-Gazar, Editor The causal effect of workplace violence on mental health and work-related outcomes: a cross-sectional study using propensity score matching PONE-D-24-28436R1 Dear Dr. 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, Heba E. El-Gazar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): No comments 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Choose one title don't put 2 titles for manuscript all comment were done please add doi for all references revise again editing ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321845.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Heba E. El-Gazar, Editor PONE-D-24-28436R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Copaja-Corzo, 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. Heba E. El-Gazar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321845.r005

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 .