Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 15, 2025
Decision Letter - Mohammad Mofatteh, Editor

Dear Dr. Whiffin,

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 Jul 20 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.

With best wishes,

Dr. Mohammad Mofatteh, PhD, MPH, MSc, PGCert, BSc (Hons), MB BCh BAO (c)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drmofatteh/

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 financial disclosure:

This research was funded by the NIHR (NIHR132455) using UK international development funding from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK government.

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Charlotte Jane Jane Whiffin.

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Charlotte J Whiffin.

5. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

7. 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 :

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments along with a revised version of the manuscript.

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This is a comprehensive scoping review assessing qualitative research in neurosurgery. It addresses a gap long acknowledged in neurosurgical literature and aligns with recent calls for qualitative integration. The manuscript highlights disparities in authorship and data collection between HICs and LMICs and addresses concerns about "helicopter research" and representation. Almost 19% of the reviewed outputs influenced policy across fifteen countries - a compelling argument for qualitative research utility in neurosurgery.

My Comments:

1. Quality Assessment:

Although scoping reviews typically avoid formal critical appraisal, a brief evaluation of methodological quality (eg Frequency of use of COREQ, audit tails, rigor indicators, reported paradigms, neurosurgeon involvement) would add weight.

2. Visual data representation

Analytical maps or conceptual/flow diagrams linking themes would enhacce readability

3. Propose a framework for future research

Based on the findings, suggest a conceptual model or framework for how qualitative research should be intergrated into neurosurgery moving forward

4. Highlight clinical impact examples

Include a short boxed section or table showing a few high-impact studies (cited in policy, guideline-forming) and thier qualitative contribution to practice change

Overall, this is a strong manuscript that makes a critical and timely contribution to both neurosurgery and qualitative health research

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Reviewer #2: This is a well written paper that addresses a clear need in the neurosurgical literature. I commend the authors for taking on this work, in this under researched area. The international collaboration on this paper only adds to its value and should also be commended.

**********

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:  Prajwal Ghimire

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Sanjeeva Jeyaretna

**********

[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

Revision 1

Please find below a summary of revisions made in responds to each of the points raised.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming

I have reviewed the formatting conventions and updated the manuscript. I have removed additional details not requested; however, retained the funding statement on the title page. I hope this is acceptable.

A number of revisions have been made throughout the manuscript to align with the formatting requirements on the ‘title_authors_affiliations’ and ‘main body’ templates.

2.Please state what role the funders took in the study

Thank you for confirming that you will change the online submission on our behalf. Please find the correct statement for inclusion.

‘The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript’

3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Charlotte Jane Jane Whiffin.

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Charlotte J Whiffin.

My apologies the error has been corrected to reflect one author Charlotte J Whiffin

5. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted

Fig 4. Is a choropleth generated using GeoPanda. We have now referenced this python tool for geographic data next to the figure citation (now Fig 5).

Line 233

Added - (Geographic visualisation of citation counts per country was performed using GeoPandas [40])

6. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Please may I seek further clarification on this point. The data set uploaded is a data extraction file of published evidence. Participant consent is not relevant to this scoping review.

7. 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

The reference list has been checked and to the best of my knowledge is accurate. I am not aware of any papers that have been retracted.

Reviewer #1: This is a comprehensive scoping review assessing qualitative research in neurosurgery. It addresses a gap long acknowledged in neurosurgical literature and aligns with recent calls for qualitative integration. The manuscript highlights disparities in authorship and data collection between HICs and LMICs and addresses concerns about "helicopter research" and representation. Almost 19% of the reviewed outputs influenced policy across fifteen countries - a compelling argument for qualitative research utility in neurosurgery.

Thank you for these kind comments.

1. Quality Assessment:

Although scoping reviews typically avoid formal critical appraisal, a brief evaluation of methodological quality (eg Frequency of use of COREQ, audit tails, rigor indicators, reported paradigms, neurosurgeon involvement) would add weight.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now summarised the data in the results section that are indicative of quality and referred directly to these in the discussion.

Line 369-380

2. Visual data representation

Analytical maps or conceptual/flow diagrams linking themes would enhance readability

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. As this review presents a descriptive rather than interpretive analysis, a conceptual or analytical framework was not developed. However, to enhance readability and visualise the thematic structure, we have included a sunburst diagram that illustrates the distribution of coding across themes and sub-themes within the evidence base.

Line 191 & 195

New Fig 2. Sunburst chart of themes and sub-themes

3. Propose a framework for future research

Based on the findings, suggest a conceptual model or framework for how qualitative research should be integrated into neurosurgery moving forward

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. While the primary aim of this review was to descriptively synthesise the current qualitative literature in neurosurgery, rather than develop a conceptual model, we recognise the value of guiding future research in this area. Therefore, we have added a brief section to the discussion highlighting opportunities for integrating qualitative approaches into key areas of neurosurgical research

Line 429-431

4. Highlight clinical impact examples

Include a short boxed section or table showing a few high-impact studies (cited in policy, guideline-forming) and their qualitative contribution to practice change

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We explored this recommendation in depth, including consultation with experts in bibliometric analysis. In doing so, we identified several limitations with the available SciVal data, which is based on Overton policy citation metrics.

First, our original manuscript cited the top five papers in terms of policy citations. However, on closer inspection, we found that the paper ‘I miss being me’ by Gilbert et al. (2017) was cited in only two unique policy documents, not five as initially reported. This discrepancy arose because the Overton database attributed multiple citations to the same policy document hosted on different webpages of EU organisations, thereby inflating the policy citation count.

We have therefore revised the manuscript to cite only the top four performing papers as fifth position is shared by multiple manuscripts, each cited in four policy documents, making it difficult to objectively prioritise a single additional study.

Second, we attempted to construct a summary table showing the study, citing policy, country, and year of citation, along with a qualitative review of each study’s contribution to policy or practice. However, several of the policy documents were either no longer publicly available or not written in English. This prevented a consistent and reliable analysis of the qualitative contribution of these studies to policy or guideline development.

As a result, we have not included a summary table but now address the limitations of bibliometric analysis more explicitly in the manuscript's limitations section.

Line 299

Line 450 – 453

5. Overall, this is a strong manuscript that makes a critical and timely contribution to both neurosurgery and qualitative health research

Many thanks, we are pleased this manuscript was well-received.

# Reviewer 2

This is a well written paper that addresses a clear need in the neurosurgical literature. I commend the authors for taking on this work, in this under researched area. The international collaboration on this paper only adds to its value and should also be commended.

We are very grateful for these encouraging comments.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Mohammad Mofatteh, Editor

The range and reach of qualitative research in neurosurgery: A scoping review.

PONE-D-25-20297R1

Dear Dr. Whiffin,

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,

Dr. Mohammad Mofatteh, PhD, MPH, MSc, PGCert, BSc (Hons), MB BCh BAO (c)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohammad Mofatteh, Editor

PONE-D-25-20297R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Whiffin,

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

Dr. Mohammad Mofatteh

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 .