Dear Dr. Rivas,

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 Aug 15 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.

• 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 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,

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The proposed review will be undertaken as part the main author’s National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Pre-doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (PCAF), reference NIHR304873. “The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care” [17]. The main author is sponsored by Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“NIHR ICA Pre-doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship 2024

Reference: NIHR304873”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments:

• This protocol is on an interesting topic that will no doubt be important to understand and improve the care of the Orthodox Jewish community in the UK. However, upon reviewing the types of articles that PLOS One publishes, it doesn’t seem that a protocol for a scoping review fits what PLOS One is looking for. I am still including my feedback for this paper if the editor decides that it will be accepted.

Introduction:

• Page 3, line 77: you introduce the word “shabbat.” This is the Hebrew term that readers may not be familiar with. You may want to consider introducing it as “the Sabbath” and then in parenthesis, saying (Shabbat/Shabbos).

• You established a good background and gap in the literature and really give the reader a good look into why this work is important. I am wondering if there is any literature you could cite to bolster this regarding whether Orthodox women experience more or high rates of maternity complications compared to the general population in the UK?

Methods:

• The acronym PPI work has been used several times, but it is unclear what it stands for. Please introduce the acronym upon first use, and then use the acronym.

• Grey literature also includes PhD dissertations and thesis, are you including those? If so, be mindful of how long they are for the full-text review and data extraction process.

• Are you planning on using any software, such as Covidence, to house and track your articles and data extraction? If so, please state that in the methods.

• I am worried that given your timeframe of 6 months, you may be biting off more than you can chew by expanding your search to outside of the UK. As you describe in the methods, your research questions are specific to the UK, as your paper title also states. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the data to then guide future work. I understand that your initial search did not turn up many results, but THAT is your gap! Mapping the few studies that have been done will then allow you to discuss the fact that there are many gaps in the literature, and they are x, y, and z based on the findings of your scoping review.

• In scoping reviews, data extraction should first be done separately and independently by 2 people and then compared for consensus. With the shared Excel file, how can you guarantee independent extraction is being done?

Discussion:

• Again, you discuss this review is to identify needs of Orthodox Jewish women in the UK, but if you include literature from Israel, you may get a very different view of needs. Israel has a large Jewish and Orthodox Jewish population, and therefore, many healthcare professionals are likely sensitive to the needs of these patients. In the UK, as you stated, the Orthodox community doesn’t interact much with the external world, so their experience in healthcare situations will likely be different.

In general, I am excited to read the results of your review and learn about your findings.

Reviewer #2: This protocol is timely, well-structured, and clearly justified. The topic, “Exploring the needs and experiences of Orthodox Jewish women and their partners in relation to UK maternity services”, is under-researched and highly relevant for equitable and culturally competent care delivery. The use of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and the incorporation of PPI (Patient and Public Involvement) enhances the methodological credibility.

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Minor grammar corrections: change “to what extend” to “to what extent”; change “courtiers” to “countries”

2. Consider elaborating on how PPI will directly inform search terms and interpretation.

3. When describing data availability, consider naming a preferred open repository (e.g., OSF, Zenodo) to strengthen transparency.

Overall, this is a robust and valuable protocol that will likely make a meaningful contribution to improving culturally sensitive maternity care. I look forward to the results of the scoping review.

**********

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: Yes:  Ella C. Nelson

**********

[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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One 6.2025.docx

Protocol for a scoping review of the evidence concerning the unique needs and experiences of Orthodox Jewish women and their partners using maternity services in the UK

PONE-D-25-16660R1

Dear Dr. Rivas,

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,

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Kindly ensure that Reviewer 2's minor comments are fully addressed prior to submitting the final version.

Reviewers' comments: