Processes for creating an interprofessional mental health identity among pre-registration healthcare students: A scoping review protocol

Melissa Owens; Gérard Charl Filies; Molly Crosland; Claire Carswell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0324568

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 8, 2025
26 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Filipe Prazeres, Editor Dear Dr. Carswell, 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. The conflicting reviews from the 2 reviewers suggest that the authors should respond to each point separately. This will help clear up any confusion and address all concerns. However, if the authors do not agree with the reviewers' suggestions, they should explain why, using clear reasons and evidence. Thank you. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 10 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 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, Filipe Prazeres, MD, MSc, 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. 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.-->?> [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: Partly ******** 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: Partly ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: Review Report for PONE-D-25-20588 Manuscript Title: Processes for creating an interprofessional mental health identity among pre-registration healthcare students: A scoping review protocol. Registration: The protocol has been prospectively registered on Open Science Framework Registries (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TJ9E7). Overall Recommendation: Revision. Rationale for Recommendation: The submission of a scoping review protocol is appropriate for publication in PLOS ONE, as the journal explicitly publishes "Study Protocols" that detail plans for research projects yet to be conducted. This aligns with PLOS ONE's emphasis on scientific validity, robust methodology, and ethical standards. Publishing a protocol enhances research transparency, reduces potential bias, and acknowledges the foundational work before data collection. However, this protocol requires revision to ensure it fully meets PLOS ONE's expectations for methodological rigor, clarity, and to adequately differentiate its contribution from other review types. The "Background" section touches upon the concept of interprofessional identity and the gap in understanding how it's formed in the mental health context for pre-registration students. This provides a good foundation for the necessity of a scoping review. The "Discussion" section briefly reiterates the knowledge gap and the expected outcome of a conceptual model. Recommended Revisions: Strengthen the Introduction/Background: While the background establishes the need, it would be beneficial to explicitly and concisely define scoping reviews and their purpose, clearly differentiating them from systematic reviews. This will further justify the chosen methodology and highlight its specific contribution. Elaborate on Data Synthesis: Although narrative synthesis is mentioned, provide more detail on how the charted data will be analyzed and synthesized to achieve the stated objectives, particularly how it will lead to the development of a conceptual model. Clarify the analytical approach to moving from charted data to a proposed model. Explicitly Address Reporting Guidelines: While the protocol mentions a PRISMA flow chart for the screening process, it would be beneficial to mention that the final scoping review will adhere to relevant reporting guidelines, such as PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting of the eventual findings. Consider Ethical Statement Nuance: While "N/A" for an ethics statement is permissible, briefly stating why it's not applicable (e.g., "This protocol outlines a review of existing literature and does not involve direct human participants or identifiable data, thus formal ethical approval is not required") could add clarity and preempt potential questions. By addressing these suggested revisions, the authors can significantly enhance the clarity, rigor, and overall impact of their protocol, demonstrating its valuable contribution to the field in line with PLOS ONE's publication standards. Reviewer #2: The value of this study speaks for itself, unfortunately it is not fully described in this protocol. I encourage authors to complete the scoping review and work to clarify the issues described below. I recommend establishing what interprofessional collaboration means in this context somewhere in the first paragraph. Perhaps line 57. An example of the type of interprofessional mental health identity would be helpful. What types of beliefs, values, and attitudes have been cited to be helpful? Lines 70-73 The description of interprofessional identity is unclear to me. I think these lines could use clarification. The ideas spanning the two sentences on lines 73 are not connected. Same comment on line 75. More information here would be helpful. Are power dynamics the only barrier to creating more harmonious interprofessional working practices? Paragraphs starting at lines 83 and 90 should be combined. The ideas therein are too similar. The introduction is not a sufficient review of the literature nor is it publication ready. Many ideas are disconnected and not organized in a clear logical manner. The research question in the methods section does not align with the objectives stated prior. Line 194 Charting should be capitalized Line 206 Collating should be capitalized Narrative synthesis needs to be described fully. This is not enough information. Line 213 typos Many typos throughout manuscript. ****** 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: Yes: Hailemariam Mamo Hassen(PhD) 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: Review Report for PONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324568.r002
Revision 1
11 Aug 2025 Author Response Reviewer 1 The submission of a scoping review protocol is appropriate for publication in PLOS ONE, as the journal explicitly publishes "Study Protocols" that detail plans for research projects yet to be conducted. This aligns with PLOS ONE's emphasis on scientific validity, robust methodology, and ethical standards. Publishing a protocol enhances research transparency, reduces potential bias, and acknowledges the foundational work before data collection. However, this protocol requires revision to ensure it fully meets PLOS ONE's expectations for methodological rigor, clarity, and to adequately differentiate its contribution from other review types. The "Background" section touches upon the concept of interprofessional identity and the gap in understanding how it's formed in the mental health context for pre-registration students. This provides a good foundation for the necessity of a scoping review. The "Discussion" section briefly reiterates the knowledge gap and the expected outcome of a conceptual model Strengthen the Introduction/Background: While the background establishes the need, it would be beneficial to explicitly and concisely define scoping reviews and their purpose, clearly differentiating them from systematic reviews. This will further justify the chosen methodology and highlight its specific contribution. Thank you for your feedback, we have amended the manuscript to ensure it meets the requirements of the journal. We have included a justification for choosing a scoping review methodology at the end of the methodology section. - Elaborate on Data Synthesis: Although narrative synthesis is mentioned, provide more detail on how the charted data will be analyzed and synthesized to achieve the stated objectives, particularly how it will lead to the development of a conceptual model. Clarify the analytical approach to moving from charted data to a proposed model. We have provided additional clarity on the data synthesis; however, as it is a scoping review, the analysis will be purely descriptive, as the aim is not to create generalizable findings. - Explicitly Address Reporting Guidelines: While the protocol mentions a PRISMA flow chart for the screening process, it would be beneficial to mention that the final scoping review will adhere to relevant reporting guidelines, such as PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting of the eventual findings. We have clarified that we will report the findings in line with PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. - Consider Ethical Statement Nuance: While "N/A" for an ethics statement is permissible, briefly stating why it's not applicable (e.g., "This protocol outlines a review of existing literature and does not involve direct human participants or identifiable data, thus formal ethical approval is not required") could add clarity and pre empt potential questions. This response is in the meta data and as a scoping review an ethical statement is not applicable. The application system specifies that if it is not applicable then ‘N/A’ should be entered. Reviewer 2 The value of this study speaks for itself, unfortunately it is not fully described in this protocol. I encourage authors to complete the scoping review and work to clarify the issues described below.I recommend establishing what interprofessional collaboration means in this context somewhere in the first paragraph. Perhaps line 57. Thank you for your comments This has now been discussed from a global context, including the relationship between interprofessional education, collaborative practice and, interprofessional identity. In addressing the comments below, the sequencing has been altered. - An example of the type of interprofessional mental health identity would be helpful. What types of beliefs, values, and attitudes have been cited to be helpful? There is a lack of literature identifying this and will hopefully be drawn out through the scoping review. However, additional information has been included as to why this is the case and why it is especially important for mental health. - Lines 70-73 The description of interprofessional identity is unclear to me. I think these lines could use clarification. The ideas spanning the two sentences on lines 73 are not connected. Same comment on line 75. More information here would be helpful. Are power dynamics the only barrier to creating more harmonious interprofessional working practices? The sequencing of the arguments given have been adjusted. Additional examples of the benefits of IPC have been included. - Paragraphs starting at lines 83 and 90 should be combined. The ideas therein are too similar. The sequencing of points, overall, have been reviewed and realigned, including these. The introduction is not a sufficient review of the literature nor is it publication ready. Many ideas are disconnected and not organized in a clear logical manner. The sequencing of the arguments given have been adjusted to help with the synergy of points made. A wider scope of literature has taken place and been included in the introduction. - The research question in the methods section does not align with the objectives stated prior. This has been amended to more accurately reflect the aims and objectives of the review. - Line 194 Charting should be capitalized This has been amended - Line 206 Collating should be capitalized This has been amended. - Narrative synthesis needs to be described fully. This is not enough information. We have added more detail to the section on synthesis. - Line 213 typos Many typos throughout manuscript. We have checked for grammar and typos using several spellchecks and hope that these have been identified and amended. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324568.r003
16 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Filipe Prazeres, Editor Dear Dr. Carswell, 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 Oct 31 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, Filipe Prazeres, MD, MSc, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> 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 #2: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 #2: Thank you for your revisions, they provided much needed clarity. Unfortunately, there are still many typos throughout the protocol. I suggest having another person read through and flag additional spelling and grammar issues since the journal does not provide copyediting. ****** 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 #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.0324568.r004
Revision 2
23 Sep 2025 Author Response Unfortunately, there are still many typos throughout the protocol. I suggest having another person read through and flag additional spelling and grammar issues since the journal does not provide copyediting Thank you for highlighting this. The manuscript has been proof read and also put through Grammarly spell checker to ensure any typos have been flagged and corrected. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responsetoreviewersv3_protocol_plosone.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324568.r005
30 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Filipe Prazeres, Editor Processes for creating an interprofessional mental health identity among pre-registration healthcare students: A scoping review protocol. PONE-D-25-20588R2 Dear Dr. Carswell, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Filipe Prazeres, MD, MSc, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324568.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Filipe Prazeres, Editor PONE-D-25-20588R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Carswell, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 Prof. Filipe Prazeres Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324568.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 .