Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 22, 2024
Decision Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor

PONE-D-24-52323A Contemporary Tool for Assessing Instrumental Activities of Daily Living: Validation of a Caregiver-Reported Scale for Non-Institutionalized Older AdultsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Barakat,

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 26 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,

Maria José Nogueira, Ph.D.

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that Data are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.  All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear editor,

The article is interesting, but needs a minor revision.

Best Regards

[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

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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: No

**********

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:  Dear Authors,

I read your work entitled “A Contemporary Tool for Assessing Instrumental Activities of Daily Living: Validation of a Caregiver-Reported Scale for Non-Institutionalized Older Adults.” and here I enclose my recommendations to you:

1. There is a need for editing many English language errors. Please, have a more thorough “look” in the text by a native speaker of English or an editing office.

2. The “Introduction” is poor and the rational of this study is not clear. The Authors have to address a lot in this work since they targeted to specific population. The translated versions of Lawton’s IADL are not all reported, is suggest the Authors to include them see a quick search I have performed for consultation (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=lawton%27s+iadl+scale+validation&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=lawton%27s+iadl+scale+validation+greek&btnG=).

3. The “Methods and the Results” are readers friendly and I congratulate the Authors for that.

4. The discussion also must be oriented to the population included in this study. If the Authors will updated their Introduction as suggested above they can enrich their discussion with more studies and strengthen more this sectiopn

Thank you!

**********

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

**********

[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

March 20, 2025

Dear Dr Maria José Nogueira,

We are pleased to resubmit the revised version of Manuscript entitled: “A contemporary tool for assessing instrumental activities of daily living: validation of a caregiver-reported scale for non-institutionalized older adults.”

Ref: Submission ID 36cd00b93930ffc3

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for their very helpful comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. We hope our revision has improved the paper to a level of their satisfaction. Our responses are in italics and are prefaced by “Author response.” Corresponding changes are highlighted in the revised file. Please find attached our revised paper, and below is a summary of how we responded to the comments. My coauthor and I appreciate the opportunity to resubmit and are excited about the possibility of publication.

Editor

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

Thank you for your time and editorial guidance!

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

Author response: Thank you for your comment! I have reviewed the PLOS ONE style requirements, including those for file naming, and can confirm that the manuscript complies with these guidelines. Please let me know if any additional revisions are needed.

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that Data are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Author’s response: Uploaded as supplementary information.

3. 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.

Author’s response: Reviewed and verified. No retracted papers have been cited.

Reviewer

I read your work entitled “A Contemporary Tool for Assessing Instrumental Activities of Daily Living: Validation of a Caregiver-Reported Scale for Non-Institutionalized Older Adults.”

Thank you for taking time to review the article and for providing such valuable input!

Here I enclose my recommendations to you:

1. There is a need for editing many English language errors. Please, have a more thorough “look” in the text by a native speaker of English or an editing office.

Author response: Thank you for your comment! As requested, the English language errors have been corrected by a native English speaker as requested.

2. The “Introduction” is poor and the rational of this study is not clear. The Authors have to address a lot in this work since they targeted to specific population. The translated versions of Lawton’s IADL are not all reported, is suggest the Authors to include them see a quick search I have performed for consultation (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=lawton%27s+iadl+scale+validation&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=lawton%27s+iadl+scale+validation+greek&btnG=).

Author response: Thank you for pointing out these issues! I have revised the introduction to clearly express the rationale of the study. Additionally, I have reviewed and updated the references of the translated versions of the IADL Lawton as requested. Please refer to the revised manuscript for the updates. I would greatly appreciate any further suggestions or if you require additional modifications.

3. The “Methods and the Results” are readers friendly and I congratulate the Authors for that.

Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback!

4. The discussion also must be oriented to the population included in this study. If the Authors will updated their Introduction as suggested above they can enrich their discussion with more studies and strengthen more this section.

Author response: Thank you for your comment! Our study developed a new scale, which makes direct comparisons with other studies challenging. However, we have made careful efforts to include relevant comparisons where possible. As requested, the discussion has been revised and encriched with additional studies. Please refer to the revised manuscript for the updates. I would greatly appreciate any further suggestions or if you require any additional modifications.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_ADF-CS Article.docx
Decision Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor

A contemporary tool for assessing instrumental activities of daily living: validation of a caregiver-reported scale for non-institutionalized older adults

PONE-D-24-52323R1

Dear Dr. Zainab Barakat

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,

Maria José Nogueira, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Author

Revisions increased the quality of the article.

The article is now able to be considered for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor

PONE-D-24-52323R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Barakat,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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

Professor Maria José Nogueira

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 .