Dear Dr. Hoekstra,

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.

==============================

You can find the reviewer's comments below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 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,

Ivan Sarmiento

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 financial disclosure:

This study was supported by a partnership grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant no. 895-2013-1021) for the Canadian Disability Participation Project (www.cdpp.ca ).

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

5. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

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 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. 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which explores the implementation and sustainability of the CDPP network through a mixed-methods design. The focus on partnership-based research networks in the field of disability studies is timely and relevant, particularly as collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches continue to grow.

Below are detailed comments aimed at enhancing the clarity, coherence, and overall contribution of the manuscript:

a. The second objective was meant to explore both network-level and partnership-level experiences. However, because of a change in methods, both levels were covered in one interview session. While this change is understandable, the paper does not fully explain how it may have affected the results. This shift might have made it harder to clearly understand partnership-level sustainability, which is an important part of the study. It would be helpful if the authors discussed how this change may have shaped the detail and focus of the findings.

b. The paper introduces common challenges to partnerships, such as time pressures, communication issues, and funding problems. However, these do not appear in the findings. The authors should clarify whether participants did not mention these issues, or if they were raised but left out of the analysis, and explain why.

c. The idea that strong networks can help research influence policy and practice is convincing, but the paper does not include any examples. If there are examples of research from the network being used in practice, it would strengthen the argument to include them. If there were no such cases, the authors might consider adjusting the conclusion to reflect that. Were there any cases where research led to changes in clinical work, community programs, or policies?

d. The paper could benefit from more information on how aspects of the network such as leadership, structure, or ways of engaging people changed over time. This would help readers better understand how the network developed.

e. It would also be helpful to explain how the findings were shared with, or used by, network members or community partners.

f. They say themes were constructed in discussion with co-authors and critical friends but how were the themes derived?

g. Please clarify how consistency and credibility were ensured during the early coding stages.

Reviewer #2: Review of Experiences on the implementation and maintenance of the Canadian Disability Participation Project: a mixed-methods study

The authors present original research that is a component part of an evaluation of the Canadian Disability Participation Project networking using the RE-AIM framework. According to the authors, “More specifically, this study aimed to:

1) describe the implementation of the CDPP network over time;

2) explore members’ experiences and reflections on the implementation and maintenance of the CDPP network and its partnerships.”

My assessment of this mixed methods research is that the design and methods are generally sound but require additional attention in order to ensure coherence throughout the manuscript and generate conclusions that best reflect the data that were generated.

Below is a list of issues that I identified through my review:

Clarity in meaning about Implementation

On page 6, the authors further detail the meanings of the two RE-AIM components that were studied, stating that “Implementation focused on CDPP members’ views on how the network functioned over time and their experiences of being part of the network and its partnerships (lines 107-8).” In their description of the data collection (survey), the authors initially repeat this focus on “views on how the network functioned” and “experiences of being part of” the network. In the lines that follow, the first concept of interest remains consistent while the second becomes “network satisfaction” (p. 10, line 199). This change is not explained, leaving uncertainty about the authors’ focus. I recommend that the authors clarify the second part of the implementation component, either by using consistent descriptions throughout the manuscript or by specifying how experiences and satisfaction are related to one another as part of implementation.

Clarity about network membership

It is unclear to me who was considered to be a member of the network and how big the network was. This uncertainty is particularly relevant for research users who are presented as both “CDPP members” (p. 9, line 179) and researchers’ partners (p. 9, line 184).

Clarity about membership is particularly relevant to determine the response rate, an issue that seems to be of concern to the authors given the limitations identified with respect to the small numbers of survey responses from research users and the possibility of a response bias.

From my read of the authors’ materials, the most promising description of the network make-up and size is the figures representing the CDPP network 2014-2021 that are included in the interview guide. Are these accurate portrayals of the numbers and distribution of the people involved? How do the authors attend to a potentially blurred boundary between a research user being a “community partner” or a “network member”?

I also note that in the text, the authors state, “S3 Text provides additional details on how the CDPP operated, including a visual of the governance structure” (p. 9 lines 174-6). I believe that this is an error as S3 contains the interview guide and I was not able to find the governance structure amid the appendices.

Clarity in the Maintenance (Capacity building) theme

The authors present one theme, “Build capacity to sustain,” as a finding from the Maintenance component of the study. Although not explicitly linked, the theme seemed to be related to and supportive of the first theme, “Strong leadership.”

The theme was presented through a description of the resources required for capacity building, “1) human resources, 2) money and time, and 3) training” (p. 22, line 427). From this list, items 1 and 2 are the least clear to me (I think that training is effectively described at the bottom of page 23). Specifically, what is meant by “human resources”? Are “human resources" created through inputs of money or time as I think is suggested by the quote from Oliver? Is money and time one concept in which money can be converted to time and time to money? If not (as again suggested by Oliver, possibly) what are the conditions that sometimes allow “a little bit of extra money” to buy the time that is needed as compared to those where “a little bit of extra money…doesn’t really help”?

In reading the authors’ description of this theme, I was yearning for clarification about each of the listed items and how they fit together. Most notably, I had the sense that this is not a list of three items (or maybe four), but instead some sort of triad where the items interact to produce the capacity that is necessary for leadership. Of course, my sense of what these concepts are and how they fit together is somewhat speculative – based upon the minimal data and analysis that were presented. A return to the interview transcripts would be necessary to effectively flesh out the participants’ views related to network maintenance.

Should the authors enhance this theme, I would equally suggest that they also review the last part of the Transformational leadership and mentorship sub-section of the Discussion.

**********

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:  Shaun Cleaver

**********

[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.

Experiences on the implementation and maintenance of the Canadian Disability Participation Project: a mixed-methods study

PONE-D-24-33799R1

Dear Dr. Hoekstra,

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,

Ivan Sarmiento

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors of the manuscript have satisfactorily addressed all the comments raised in the previous round

**********

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:  Andres Rojas Cardenas

**********