Fostering culture of care for early career researchers—Building a trustful environment: Insights from a German perspective

Fernando Gonzalez-Uarquin; Fabienne Ferrara; Nadine Baumgart; Jan Baumgart; Sabine Juliane Bischoff

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331675

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 27, 2025
22 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Sourav Roy, Editor Dear Dr. Gonzalez-Uarquin, 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 Sep 05 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, Sourav Roy 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 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 . 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please revise the manuscript per the reviewers' suggestions. It is important to address every point raised by each of the three reviewers, for this manuscript to be considered for publication. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** Reviewer #1: The work presented is a relevant basis for improving the environment and conditions in which animal research is carried out, first and foremost in terms of the welfare of researchers. The framework of the survey is restricted to a limited geographical area, and this aspect should be considered in the title. Reviewer #2: The research is a good one. However, there are few corrections as outlined below: In the Abstract section, mention is made of 3Rs without stating what the 3Rs represent. Even though the full meaning is given in the main body of the work, it is important that this be stated at first mention, especially in the Abstarct section as this is the part a reader would read first. Check line 239 under Results section and correct accordinglhy. What is written ther is (refinement, replacement and refinement). Refinement is repeated twice. * Line 391 under the Discussion section should be "employees" and not "employes" Reviewer #3: The manuscript deals with the possible health and mental risks for early career researchers (ECRs) who are involved in animal experiments in their research. A brief introduction highlights the role of ECRs, identifies challenges for this group of scientists and speculates on possible causes for these challenges. The experimental part of the study includes a survey with 124 ECRs and conducting a workshop on the matter. The collected responses were analyzed descriptively and provide an overview of the degree of stress, potential causes and applied coping mechanisms. The results are discussed in detail and a number of suggestions for improving the situation are provided. The present study deals with an important aspect of research that can have a major impact on the individual careers of ECRs, scientific work with animals and the results of such studies. The scientific component of this study may be lower than in other publications, but this is outweighed by its social and scientific relevance. I therefore consider it essential to publish the results of the study. The article is well written and comprehensible and is particularly convincing due to the thoroughness of the discussion. I only have a few (almost picky) suggestions for changes. Line 137 12 participants in 3 groups of 3 doesn’t add up – please correct numbers Line 297 This section begins somewhat unfavorably and needs to be formulated clearly: in the methods section participants were described as homogenous group (senior staff, older than 40) different from ECRs - however, the question posed in the workshop part 1 suggests the perspective of the ECRs. Perhaps the text should be reworded here so that it is clear who comes to this conclusion. Line 339 ECS – wrong abbreviation Line 548 change “labor” to “working” or “laboratory” ******** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes: Paul Mieske ******** [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: reviewer_comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331675.r001
Revision 1
5 Aug 2025 Author Response PONE-D-25-09004 Fostering culture of care for early career researchers – building a trustful environment: Insights from a German perspective PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sourav Roy, We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the time and effort dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided, which has helped us improve the clarity and quality of our work. Please find below our detailed responses to the comments raised by the editorial board, Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3. We have addressed each point carefully and made the corresponding revisions in the manuscript, which are highlighted for ease of reference. Where appropriate, we have also included a brief justification for our approach or clarified our intentions. We hope the revised version meets the expectations of the journal and look forward to your further consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Fernando Gonzalez Uarquin On behalf of all authors Editorial Comments 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 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. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please revise the manuscript per the reviewers' suggestions. It is important to address every point raised by each of the three reviewers, for this manuscript to be considered for publication. Thank you for your comments. We have addressed all the points mentioned by the reviewers. In addition, we amended the affiliation of the authors as we have realized of some mistakes (lines 10 – 18 of the revised manuscript with track changes). In addition, we fixed the space between headings and paragraphs in accordance with the guidelines. ____________________________________ Reviewers’ comments Reviewer #1: The work presented is a relevant basis for improving the environment and conditions in which animal research is carried out, first and foremost in terms of the welfare of researchers. The framework of the survey is restricted to a limited geographical area, and this aspect should be considered in the title. Thank you for your relevant feedback. The comment about the title is a valid point, and we have revised the title accordingly to reflect the limited geographical scope of the survey: “Fostering culture of care for early career researchers – building a trustful environment: Insights from a German perspective.” Reviewer #2: The research is a good one. However, there are few corrections as outlined below: 1) In the Abstract section, mention is made of 3Rs without stating what the 3Rs represent. Even though the full meaning is given in the main body of the work, it is important that this be stated at first mention, especially in the Abstarct section as this is the part a reader would read first. We thank for your comment and amended the fragment of the abstract accordingly: “…3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement)…” 2) Check line 239 under Results section and correct accordinglhy. What is written ther is (refinement, replacement and refinement). Refinement is repeated twice. Thank you for pointing out this oversight (line 239 of the revised manuscript with track changes). We have corrected it according to your comment. 3) Line 391 under the Discussion section should be "employees" and not "employes" We apologize for the typo. The word employes was changed by employees in line 392 of the revised manuscript with track changes of the tracked document. Reviewer #3: The manuscript deals with the possible health and mental risks for early career researchers (ECRs) who are involved in animal experiments in their research. A brief introduction highlights the role of ECRs, identifies challenges for this group of scientists and speculates on possible causes for these challenges. The experimental part of the study includes a survey with 124 ECRs and conducting a workshop on the matter. The collected responses were analyzed descriptively and provide an overview of the degree of stress, potential causes and applied coping mechanisms. The results are discussed in detail and a number of suggestions for improving the situation are provided. The present study deals with an important aspect of research that can have a major impact on the individual careers of ECRs, scientific work with animals and the results of such studies. The scientific component of this study may be lower than in other publications, but this is outweighed by its social and scientific relevance. I therefore consider it essential to publish the results of the study. The article is well written and comprehensible and is particularly convincing due to the thoroughness of the discussion. I only have a few (almost picky) suggestions for changes. 1) Line 137: 12 participants in 3 groups of 3 doesn’t add up – please correct numbers We apologize for the mistake. The word “three” was changed by “four” employees in line 137 of the revised manuscript with track changes. 2) Line 297: This section begins somewhat unfavorably and needs to be formulated clearly: in the methods section participants were described as homogenous group (senior staff, older than 40) different from ECRs - however, the question posed in the workshop part 1 suggests the perspective of the ECRs. Perhaps the text should be reworded here so that it is clear who comes to this conclusion. Thank you very much for your comment. We reworded accordingly (from line 297 of the revised manuscript with track changes): “Participants discussed the challenges of working with ECR or experienced colleagues, depending on their perspective. Structural difficulties included separate workplaces and limited discussion time, while the hierarchical organization meant new ideas were not always welcomed.” 3) Line 339: ECS – wrong abbreviation Thank you very much for catching this typo, “ECS” was changed by “ECR” employees in line 339 of the revised manuscript with track changes. 4) Line 548: change “labor” to “working” or “laboratory” Thank you for pointing out this oversight in what is now line 556 of the revised manuscript with track changes. We have corrected it according to your comment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331675.r002
20 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Sourav Roy, Editor Fostering culture of care for early career researchers – building a trustful environment: Insights from a German perspective PONE-D-25-09004R1 Dear Dr. Gonzalez-Uraquin, 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 email 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, Sourav Roy Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please change the title to: Fostering a culture of care for early career researchers – building a trustworthy environment: Insights from a German Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331675.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sourav Roy, Editor PONE-D-25-09004R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gonzalez-Uarquin, 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. Sourav Roy Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331675.r004

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 .