Dear Dr. Ghods,

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 23 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,

Noushin Kohan

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 amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Aliasghar Ghods

3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Ali Asghar Ghods

4. 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.

5. 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 .

6. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

To prevent unnecessary delays and expedite the review process, I would like to inform you that your manuscript is now ready for revision following the initial review stage. Upon thorough examination of the reviewers’ comments, it is important to highlight that Reviewer 2 has recommended rejection based on several significant and serious concerns. Given the critical nature of these comments, they represent an important opportunity to enhance the scientific quality of your manuscript and should therefore be addressed with full diligence and care.

Meanwhile, Reviewer 1 has provided constructive feedback which, although does not explicitly recommend rejection, points to several weaknesses that require correction and careful consideration.

We kindly ask you to carefully consider and comprehensively respond to each of Reviewer 2’s comments, implementing all necessary revisions in detail. At the same time, please also address the valuable points raised by Reviewer 1. Thoroughly addressing all reviewers’ remarks will facilitate a smoother and faster subsequent review.

After completing the revisions, please submit the revised manuscript along with a detailed, clear, and point-by-point response to each reviewer’s comments via the provided submission link.

Wishing you success in your revision,

Dr Nooshin Kohan

Academic Editor

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: An interesting manuscript has been submitted. Identifying Nurses’ Innovative Behavior and strengthening these behaviors can lead to nurse satisfaction and increasing the quality of nursing services. The result can be the provision of quality nursing care.

The manuscript was reviewed. A few points are unclear to me:

The conceptual framework of the study should be written and the concepts in it should be explained.

What is the reason for choosing the title "Inventory"? Considering that a mixed method study with an exploratory approach was conducted, why was this title chosen?

In the first phase - Conceptualization, two qualitative studies was conducted. However, these are not mentioned in the abstract and only the psychometric method of the inventory is stated.

The method of Conceptualization needs further explanation. This step was carried out by conducting two qualitative studies, but the type of qualitative study was not stated and it is not clear how the item pool was completed by conducting this phase.

Although the psychometric stage of research instruments is carried out in several different and separate steps, it is necessary to mention such things as sample size, type of sampling, method, and expression of the most important results in each step. For example, in determining quantitative face validity, what was the sample size? Or in conducting Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, how was the sample size selected and nurses divided into two groups? Also, the findings of the Construct Validity stage are precisely mentioned, but in other steps, the results are not well stated. The discussion needs to be rewritten. Considering the existing questionnaires on Innovative Behavior and the process of preparing and psychometrically validating each one, the discussion should be rewritten.

Reviewer #2: While your article has relatively few methodological flaws (for instance, some of the results are reported in the Methods section), your justification for the inadequacy of creativity assessment tools in nursing is insufficient. Creativity in nursing is not necessarily a culture- or society-specific issue; rather, it is primarily a professional competency, and numerous studies have been conducted on this topic. Standardized and widely accepted measurement tools already exist.In my opinion, this study lacks novelty. Furthermore, validated tools for measuring creativity among nurses are already available in the Iranian nursing community. Additionally, the Results section of your study is inadequate.

Sincerely,

**********

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.

The Nurses’ Innovative Behavior Inventory (NIBI): A Development and Validation Study

PONE-D-25-04660R1

Dear Dr. Ali Asghar Ghods

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,

Maria José Nogueira, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The article has been reviewed and is ready for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “The Nurses’ Innovative Behavior Inventory (NIBI): A Development and Validation Study.” The study is well designed and follows an appropriate methodological structure for the development and psychometric validation of an instrument.

The statistical procedures applied are suitable. The use of separate samples for the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses strengthens the robustness of the factorial structure. The reported fit indices are acceptable and the reliability coefficients demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency and temporal stability.

The authors have addressed the previous reviewers’ comments adequately and the manuscript has improved as a result of these revisions.

I have no further comments.

**********

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 #3: No

**********