PONE-D-25-21706What Gets a Dentist Hired? Factors influencing employment of recent dentist graduates in Saudi ArabiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aboalshamat,

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 11 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,

Ayesha Fahim

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

3. We notice that your supplementary information is uploaded with the file type 'Other”. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

4. 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.

5. 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. 

[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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Report – Manuscript PONE-D-25-21706

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “What Gets a Dentist Hired? Factors influencing employment of recent dentist graduates in Saudi Arabia”. The study addresses a relevant and timely issue, particularly in the context of rising numbers of dental graduates and employment challenges in the health sector. While the authors attempt to contribute meaningfully to the literature by identifying employment correlates among Saudi dental graduates, there are notable methodological and interpretive issues that require attention before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Overall Assessment

The study employs a cross-sectional design using a self-developed questionnaire distributed via social media to recent dental graduates. While the topic is important, several concerns limit the generalizability and interpretive power of the findings. These concerns relate primarily to sampling design, insufficient methodological clarity, and overreaching in data interpretation.

Methodological Concerns and Clarity

The authors justify their use of convenience sampling due to a lack of a sampling frame, but do not adequately explain the rationale behind the four-month post-graduation inclusion criterion. Further, the recruitment approach, described as distribution via social media, is vague. It remains unclear whether participants were contacted through individual outreach, open group posts, or targeted advertising. This has implications for understanding who was likely to respond and how representative the sample is of all recent graduates.

The description of questionnaire development is similarly ambiguous. The manuscript does not clearly identify which items were adapted from existing studies and which were developed by the authors. References to a group of five dental professionals involved in item generation lack context, such as their expertise or affiliations. Terms like “classified according to the results” also need clarification. Additionally, although the authors claim content validity was established through a pilot with 17 professionals, more detail on the outcome of that process is needed.

Questionable Inferences and Over-Interpretation

The manuscript makes several claims that extend beyond what the sampling and analysis can support. For example, it states that individuals with higher GPAs were “more likely” to be employed in government positions. Given the non-probabilistic sampling, such language implies causality or population-level generalizability that is not warranted. In other instances, findings like the association between marital status and employment are interpreted in ways that are culturally and temporally ambiguous (e.g., suggesting marriage may lead to employment or vice versa), without acknowledging reverse causation or third variables.

Similarly, findings from bivariate tests are discussed as definitive patterns rather than preliminary associations, and comparisons to earlier studies (e.g., Farag et al.) are made without considering differences in design, sample population, or recruitment approach.

Measurement and Validity Issues

Several variables—particularly those related to soft skills, job applications, and social media activity—are based on self-report without any control for social desirability or independent validation. This is especially important given the nature of questions such as “Would you do a procedure you’re not licensed to perform?” The ethical implications of such items are concerning, and the framing of these questions warrants reconsideration. The authors should also reflect on how reliable these self-assessments are and how they affect conclusions drawn about employability.

Contradictory or Misleading Interpretations

The manuscript includes internal contradictions. For example, it asserts that social media activity does not influence employability, yet cites other studies showing its importance in patient acquisition. These are not contradictory findings per se, since they refer to different outcomes (employment vs. client-building). However, the manuscript presents them as opposing, weakening the argument. Likewise, the phrase “more likely to be employed” is used repeatedly despite the convenience sampling and lack of controls for confounding variables. At minimum, this language should be revised to indicate associations rather than predictive relationships.

Recommendations and Limitations

The authors acknowledge several limitations at the end of the paper. However, many of the inferences and policy recommendations throughout the manuscript do not reflect these limitations. If the authors are to advocate for policy changes, such as adjustments to hiring practices or salary structures, those claims should be based on more rigorous and representative data, or at least tempered in tone.

While the manuscript brings important attention to a growing workforce issue in Saudi Arabia, its current form requires major revision. The authors should clarify their methodology, temper their conclusions, and improve the transparency of their questionnaire design. Future revisions should also avoid overstatement of findings and better align interpretation with methodological constraints.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this manuscript and hope the comments will help the authors in strengthening their work.

Thank you.

Reviewer #2: Keywords must be based on MESH TERM.

Regarding sample size, reference should be made to a specific article.

There is no report on the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

In the discussion section, the beginning should be different and it is not necessary to write exactly the conclusion contents.

The discussion needs more attention and revision, and relevant articles should be used, not necessarily related to the country of Saudi Arabia.

References should be rechecked and matched to the journal format.

Questionnaire should be added.

**********

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

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: PONE-D-25-21706.docx

What Gets a Dentist Hired? Factors influencing employment of recent dentist graduates in Saudi Arabia

PONE-D-25-21706R1

Dear Dr. Aboalshamat,

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,

Ayesha Fahim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: