Existential aspects of fatherhood transition—A systematic qualitative review protocol using framework synthesis

Marie Sejrsgaard; Caroline Moos; Maiken Fabricius Damm; Christina Prinds

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338056

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 7, 2025
20 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Sergi Fàbregues, Editor Dear Dr. Sejrsgaard, 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 Dec 04 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, Sergi Fàbregues 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 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. 4. 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: This is a well-reported systematic review protocol on an interesting and well-justified topic. Please find my recommendations below for improving the manuscript: - Please clarify whether the protocol has been registered. - Please provide a rationale for choosing the four selected databases. Given the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, it is surprising that broad, multidisciplinary databases such as Web of Science and Scopus will not be used. - Please provide more details on how the framework synthesis approach will be applied, including the steps to be implemented. - The discussion section is missing. A complete discussion section needs to be included. - No limitations are mentioned in the Strengths and Limitations section. Please address this. - An explanation of how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed is absent and should be provided. - Several typos are present throughout the manuscript and should be corrected. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338056.r001
Revision 1
14 Nov 2025 Author Response Journal requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The required changes have been made to the formatting of the manuscript and the file naming. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. The ethics statement has been removed from the abstract and is now only to be found as a Subheading under the Method section (see line 144-147). 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. There was no such recommendation. 4. 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. Thank you, the reference list has been reviewed, and no changes have been made apart from adding four new references corresponding to the added discussion section. Additional Editor Comments: This is a well-reported systematic review protocol on an interesting and well-justified topic. Please find my recommendations below for improving the manuscript: Thank you for this comment. - Please clarify whether the protocol has been registered. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (see line 21-22). - Please provide a rationale for choosing the four selected databases. Given the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, it is surprising that broad, multidisciplinary databases such as Web of Science and Scopus will not be used. Thank you for this valuable feedback. After discussion and on your recommendation, we decided to include Web of Science on the list of databases to be searched. - Please provide more details on how the framework synthesis approach will be applied, including the steps to be implemented. Thank you for this opportunity. Please see the addition in line 127-139 to address this comment. - The discussion section is missing. A complete discussion section needs to be included. Some protocol articles include a discussion or elaboration on the introduction in the discussion. As the review is not completed it is subject to debate whether a discussion section is of value. We have chosen to expand on some of our reflections on the relevance and implications on the topic of this review in the discussion section (see line 148-157). - No limitations are mentioned in the Strengths and Limitations section. Please address this. Thank you for drawing this omission to our attention. The Strengths and Limitations section has been rewritten for a more coherent style, and to include some of the challenges of a review of this nature (see line 158-173). - An explanation of how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed is absent and should be provided. Thank you for this comment. As our study is qualitative rather than quantitative, the concept of “strength of evidence” is not directly applicable. Instead, we assess the trustworthiness of the evidence, which is evaluated based on methodological rigor rather than statistical strength [1-3]. To ensure transparency and consistency, we will assess selectiveness of reporting by using the established appraisal tool; Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist (see line 115-118). Additionally, we have added a level of meta reflection to the analysis process to enhance trustworthiness of the results (see line 139-142). - Several typos are present throughout the manuscript and should be corrected. We have submitted the manuscript to a third round of proofreading by a native English speaker. 1. Malterud, K., V.D. Siersma, and A.D. Guassora, Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 2016. 26(13): p. 1753–1760. 2. Williams, V., A.-M. Boylan, and D. Nunan, Qualitative research as evidence: expanding the paradigm for evidence-based healthcare. BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2019. 24(5): p. 168–169. 3. Williams, V., et al., Appraising qualitative health research-towards a differentiated approach. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2022. 27(4): p. 212–214. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338056.r002
17 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Sergi Fàbregues, Editor Existential aspects of fatherhood transition. -A systematic qualitative review protocol using framework synthesis PONE-D-25-52335R1 Dear Dr. Sejrsgaard, 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, Sergi Fàbregues Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Just one minor comment: The strength or confidence of evidence in qualitative synthesis is typically assessed using the GRADE-CERQual tool. However, there is no need to modify this in the manuscript; the authors’ response to my comment is appropriate. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338056.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sergi Fàbregues, Editor PONE-D-25-52335R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sejrsgaard, 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. Sergi Fàbregues Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338056.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 .