PONE-D-25-05013The Relationship between Professional Quality of Life and Work Environment among Nurses in Neonate Care UnitsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. aqtam,

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 19 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,

Amal Diab Ghanem Atalla, ph.D

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.  Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE Journal. After careful evaluation by our reviewers and the editorial team, we have determined that your manuscript has merit but requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication.

The reviewers have identified several key areas that need significant improvement, including [briefly mention the main concerns, e.g., methodological limitations, insufficient data analysis, unclear presentation of results, or inadequate discussion]. We encourage you to carefully address each of the reviewers' comments and provide a detailed response outlining the changes made. If any suggestions cannot be implemented, please provide a clear justification.

Given the extent of the required revisions, your manuscript will undergo another round of peer review upon resubmission. Please ensure that your revised manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting and reporting guidelines.

We appreciate your efforts and look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you require any clarification.

Best regards,

Amal Diab Ghanem Atalla

Academic editor at PLOS ONE Journal

[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: Yes

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: Areas for Improvement

Clarity and Conciseness

Some sections, particularly the Introduction and Discussion, could be more concise.

Certain sentences are repetitive, especially in explaining concepts like burnout and secondary traumatic stress. Consider streamlining these explanations.

Depth of Literature Review

While the study references relevant literature, it could benefit from more recent global studies on NICU nurses’ well-being.

The discussion would be strengthened by incorporating additional sources that examine how similar challenges are addressed in other resource-limited settings.

Statistical Interpretation

The Spearman’s correlation analysis is appropriately used, but a regression analysis could provide more insight into predictive relationships between work environment factors and ProQoL components.

Consider adding confidence intervals for correlation coefficients to provide more statistical clarity.

Limitations Section

The study acknowledges limitations (cross-sectional design, self-reported data, geographic constraints), but it could be expanded by discussing potential response bias or the impact of cultural factors on ProQoL perceptions.

A recommendation for qualitative research (e.g., interviews with NICU nurses) could further enrich future studies.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The conclusion effectively summarizes the findings but could be stronger by emphasizing specific next steps for research or policy implementation.

Future studies could explore interventions (e.g., workplace wellness programs) to improve ProQoL outcomes rather than just measuring relationships.

Reviewer #2: The Relationship between Professional Quality of Life and Work Environment among Nurses in Neonate Care Units

Dear authors, thank you for trying to deepen the knowledge within your topic, I have taken great interest in reading your work.

- Please ensure that your manuscript meets all requirements

- The title is very critical and important, additionally it covers an extra point of research not covered in previous research.

_ In the abstract you have mention the conclusion, the discussion you have removed it

-In Literature review, the first paragraph; you mentioned directly the dimension ProQOL but at first put the definition and not write also the abbreviation only in the first line without write the complete name of this abbreviation.

- Introduction; Please mention international studies showed the relationship between the two variables to support your introduction.

- In Methodology, “Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI): The PES-NWI was developed by Lake in 2000 ( in this instrument please mention the subdimensions names, additionally where the original reference of the tool specifically where Lake (2000) article)

- Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL) Version 5: The following scale contains 30 items and is represented through three subscales ( in this part please mention the name of author who developed this tool)

- In ethical approval part please mention IRB number

- Write more about data collection processes as how do it and also the duration of data collection?

I wish you successfully continued work with your manuscript!

**********

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.

The Relationship between Professional Quality of Life and Work Environment among Nurses in Neonate Care Units

PONE-D-25-05013R1

Dear Dr. aqtam,

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,

Amal Diab Ghanem Atalla, ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Author,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript

has been accepted for publication in PLOS ONE Journal following a rigorous peer-review process.

Your research makes a valuable contribution to the field, and we appreciate your dedication and scholarly efforts.

Our editorial team will now proceed with the final production stages, including formatting and proofreading. You will receive proofs for review in the coming weeks. Please ensure timely communication to facilitate a smooth publication process.

We congratulate you on this achievement and look forward to sharing your work with the academic community.

Best regards,

[Amal Diab Ghanem Atalla]

[Academic editor]

Reviewers' comments: