Dear Dr. Burke,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 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,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera, PhD

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

The article addresses a gap in the research on the current landscape of the emergency management workforce, which, according to the authors, has not been the subject of a comprehensive recent study.

The mixed-methods approach allows for a deeper exploration than prior studies that focused solely on demographic aspects.

The article is generally well organized, following standard sections.

The abstract and introduction clearly reflect the study's objective (examining the emergency management workforce, including demographics, organizational concerns, and community relations) and its significance (an evolving field, the need for a workforce that reflects the communities it serves, and the lack of prior research).

General comments:

1) Information is provided regarding the topics covered in the focus groups and the survey sections. However, the exact wording of the questions used in both instruments is not fully available in the provided materials, which may limit the precise replication of the study. To improve replicability, the authors are encouraged to consider making the full questionnaires for both the focus groups and the survey available, possibly as supplementary supporting material.

These changes are substantial as they directly affect the validity of the conclusions drawn from the survey data and the transparency of the analytical methods employed, in line with PLOS ONE standards. Once these issues are addressed, the manuscript will have a stronger foundation for publication.

2) The methodology section mentions the use of logistic regression to identify significant relationships between variables; however, the results of this analysis are not presented anywhere in the Results section or in the tables. This constitutes a notable inconsistency between what is reported in the Methods and what is shown in the Results. The authors should either include the results of the logistic regression or, alternatively, remove the reference to this analysis from the Methods section.

3) The authors state that a "nationally representative" survey was conducted. However, in the Discussion section, they mention a low response rate (2%) and that the majority of responses came from only two organizations. These factors significantly limit the generalizability of the survey results and call into question the claim of national representativeness as currently stated. The authors should revise the description of the survey to accurately reflect these limitations, potentially qualifying its representativeness. In addition, the discussion on the implications of this limitation for the generalizability of the survey findings should be expanded and approached with greater caution.

Results:

The results from the focus groups (common themes, selected quotations) and the survey (descriptive statistics presented in tables) are clearly presented and consistent with the descriptive methods employed (thematic analysis for focus groups, frequencies/percentages for the survey). As previously mentioned, while the Methods section describes the use of statistical analyses such as logistic regression, the results of such analyses are not presented in the provided materials.

Recommendation:

Based on the evaluation, the article presents valuable information and addresses an important topic using a suitable mixed-methods approach. However, there are significant issues regarding the presentation of the methodology and results, as well as in the interpretation of the survey’s representativeness, which affect the quality and validity of certain key claims.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:

Dear authors,

Given the importance of the subject of disasters, the following points can be useful in improving your valuable article.

The abstract should be properly based on the structure of the journal, including introduction, method, results, and findings.

Keywords should be selected based on the network.

The method should be stated more precisely in the abstract.

The purpose of the research should be properly stated in the abstract and introduction.

In the introduction:

The topic is not well-explained. The scope of the increase in disasters and their consequences, based on international reports, is not mentioned. Global and American statistics should be referred to, and then the situation of the United States should be examined.

The research gap in the present study is not well explained.

What are the findings of your study?

The method is not well-explained. How to select people. Criteria and input, and output flow. What is the sample size formula? Questions related to this topic have not been answered. It is suggested that each of the questions in this section about the focus group method be presented, and it is suggested that abbreviations be used in the text. The sample size in this type of study should be mentioned with the source. Why is it this number? The article lacks a source in the method. It should be corrected.

This article does not include a discussion on the topic of the article. Conclusions based on content are not considered a discussion.

Reviewer #2:

This article presents an original and timely investigation into the demographics, structural challenges, and community engagement dynamics of the current emergency management (EM) workforce in the United States. The study addresses an underexplored but increasingly relevant aspect of public health and disaster preparedness using a mixed-methods approach that involves both focus groups and a national survey. Therefore, I provide my evaluation following journal criteria.

Criterion 1. The study presents the results of original research

The authors report the findings of both qualitative focus groups and a nationally distributed survey, developed and implemented as part of this project. The integration of qualitative insights with quantitative data enhances the originality of the study and adds depth to its conclusions. The work represents a novel and valuable contribution to the emergency management and public health literature.

Criterion 2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere

There is no indication that the results have been previously published. The data are recent (2024), and the scope and synthesis of the mixed-method approach appear unique.

Criterion 3. Experiments, statistics, and analyses are performed to a high standard and are described in sufficient detail

The general methodology is appropriate for the research objectives. However, several areas lack sufficient detail or technical depth. While Atlas.ti was used for coding, the manuscript does not describe the coding process, development of the codebook, inter-coder reliability, or whether the thematic analysis followed a specific framework. The manuscript does not state whether the survey was tested or validated before deployment. Some questions may be susceptible to bias without that validation step. Frequency and logistic regression are briefly mentioned, but no regression results (e.g. odds ratios, confidence intervals, p-values) are reported. This significantly limits interpretability and undermines the credibility of quantitative inferences.

Expand the Methods section to detail the survey design process (including item construction and pilot testing). Report logistic regression outputs or remove the claim of inferential analysis. Clarify how qualitative themes were derived and supported with rigor.

4. Conclusions are supported by the data and presented appropriately

The conclusions are well-aligned with the data. The manuscript effectively integrates focus group narratives with survey responses to support broader claims about funding challenges, workforce composition, and DEI efforts. In particular, the discussion is balanced in acknowledging strengths (e.g., improving gender representation) and weaknesses (e.g., persistent racial homogeneity) within the EM workforce.

However, some findings, such as improving gender diversity, could benefit from more nuance, especially given the modest sample sizes and potential non-response bias.

5. The article is intelligible and written in standard English

The manuscript is mostly well-written and accessible. Nevertheless, several minor grammatical errors and repetitive sentence structures (e.g., "age" repeated twice in one sentence; inconsistent verb tenses) detract slightly from readability. A thorough copyediting pass is recommended to improve sentence flow and technical precision.

6. The research meets ethical standards and is ethically sound

The study received IRB approval from the University of Southern California (#UP-23-01120). The authors appropriately used information sheets for informed consent and followed exempt research protocols for minimal-risk studies. No ethical concerns are apparent.

7. The article adheres to reporting guidelines and community data availability standards

The data availability statement affirms that all relevant data are available in the manuscript and supporting materials. This is consistent with the PLOS ONE policies. Ethical disclosures and funding disclosures are complete and transparent.

Additional Comments and Recommendations

Low Response Rate (2%): The manuscript should provide a stronger justification for this low survey response rate and discuss the potential for selection bias. For example, overrepresentation from a few organizations may skew results toward specific perspectives.

Sample Representativeness: The study claims to use a 'nationally representative' survey, but does not describe how representativeness was ensured. Consider adjusting this claim or providing a clearer sampling strategy and weighting information.

Clarity on Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Neither the qualitative nor quantitative sections provide details on participant eligibility criteria beyond membership in EM organizations. This should be explicitly stated.

Consideration of Intersectionality: While demographic breakdowns are extensive, analysis could be enriched by addressing intersectional experiences, for instance, how gender and race/ethnicity together shape experiences in EM.

Future Directions Section: This is well developed and proposes compelling avenues for further work, such as mental health in EM and standardization of credentials. The authors may also consider suggesting policy implications from their findings.

The manuscript offers important contributions to the literature on workforce development, equity, and operational challenges in EM. Although the study is well-conceived and its conclusions are largely supported by the data, several methodological and reporting issues must be addressed before the manuscript can be recommended for publication.

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Burke,

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.

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

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript, which has now been re-evaluated by the reviewers who assessed your initial submission.

After careful consideration of their reports, it is clear that the major concerns raised in the previous review round have not been adequately addressed. The reviewers note that key issues regarding the clarity and focus of the introduction, the methodological classification, and the depth and coherence of the discussion remain largely unresolved.

Although some revisions were made, they are considered mostly superficial and do not substantially improve the manuscript’s analytical rigor or methodological transparency. In particular, the reviewers emphasize that the integration between the qualitative and quantitative components remains weak, and that the qualitative analysis lacks sufficient explanation and depth. Furthermore, the current version still does not provide a clear or well-supported conclusion in the abstract.

Given these persistent concerns, the reviewers recommend that the manuscript requires major revision before it can be considered for publication. We therefore invite you to carefully address each of the reviewers’ comments in detail, providing substantial methodological clarification, improving the structure and focus of your manuscript, and enhancing the interpretive depth of your discussion.

Should you decide to submit a further revision, please ensure that all changes are clearly indicated and justified in your response letter.

Thank you again for your interest in publishing with PLOS ONE. We appreciate your continued effort to improve your manuscript.

Kind regards.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 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,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript, which has now been re-evaluated by the reviewers who assessed your initial submission.

After careful consideration of their reports, it is clear that the major concerns raised in the previous review round have not been adequately addressed. The reviewers note that key issues regarding the clarity and focus of the introduction, the methodological classification, and the depth and coherence of the discussion remain largely unresolved.

Although some revisions were made, they are considered mostly superficial and do not substantially improve the manuscript’s analytical rigor or methodological transparency. In particular, the reviewers emphasize that the integration between the qualitative and quantitative components remains weak, and that the qualitative analysis lacks sufficient explanation and depth. Furthermore, the current version still does not provide a clear or well-supported conclusion in the abstract.

Given these persistent concerns, the reviewers recommend that the manuscript requires major revision before it can be considered for publication. We therefore invite you to carefully address each of the reviewers’ comments in detail, providing substantial methodological clarification, improving the structure and focus of your manuscript, and enhancing the interpretive depth of your discussion.

Should you decide to submit a further revision, please ensure that all changes are clearly indicated and justified in your response letter.

Thank you again for your interest in publishing with PLOS ONE. We appreciate your continued effort to improve your manuscript.

Kind regards.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:

Dear Author,

Thank you for your efforts, please review the following again.

Abstract: There is no conclusion in this study.

In the keywords, surge capacity is a more accurate option in responding to crises.

In the introduction, the willingness of the authorities to provide in 2024 and 2025 is presented. In this study, the role of gender is discussed more. If this study is about the role of human resources and the role of its management in crises, this introduction should focus on the pre-hospital topic. This can also affect the title of this study.

In the introduction, the focus of the topic is not well explained.

Studies conducted show that there is no precise classification in the method. This article can provide a better presentation in a classification method.

The discussion in this study is not well explained, and the changes are not made clearly

Reviewer #2: SEE DOCUMENT ATTACHED

The manuscript explores the composition and challenges of the emergency management workforce using a mixed-methods design. The topic is relevant and timely, and the study aims to fill a clear gap in understanding workforce diversity and organizational issues within this field. However, while the paper presents descriptive results with clarity, the methodological integration between qualitative and quantitative components is weak, and the qualitative analysis lacks depth and transparency. The manuscript would benefit from a more rigorous approach to mixed-methods reporting, as well as greater methodological detail and interpretive caution in its conclusions. Therefore, I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

**********

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: renamed_25b7a.docx

Dear Dr. Burke,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your efforts.

I have carefully reviewed the full set of comments provided by Reviewer 1 and 2 across rounds 1, 2, and 3, as well as the authors’ detailed responses and the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript. In addition, I reassessed the comments from Reviewer 1 and the current version of the manuscript in its entirety.

Overall, I consider that the authors have responded adequately to the vast majority of the concerns raised by both reviewers. Many of the major issues identified by Reviewer 1 have been addressed satisfactorily, and the manuscript has improved substantially over successive rounds of revision. Importantly, the authors clearly state that this is an exploratory study. While the manuscript does not employ advanced statistical analyses, the descriptive data are adequately presented, and the study provides a valuable preliminary evidence base upon which future research can build. In my assessment, this exploratory contribution is appropriate for the journal and of potential interest to its readership.

While I agree that some aspects still require correction and clarification, these remaining issues are, in my view, limited in scope and can be addressed through a focused minor revision rather than warranting rejection.

The main points that still need to be comprehensively revised by the authors are confined to the Methods section and the Abstract, specifically:

1. Ensuring that the abstract follows the journal’s required structure for headings (introduction, methods, results, conclusions).

2. Providing a clearer and more explicit description of the methodology, including participant selection procedures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sampling strategy, sample size justification with appropriate references, and data collection methods.

3. Clarifying the context of the sampled population (prehospital vs. intrahospital emergency settings), as this distinction is important for interpreting disaster management practices.

In light of this, after personal evaluation of all review rounds and revisions, I determine that the remaining concerns can be resolved through a final minor revision, explicitly noting that only three well-defined issues remain to be addressed prior to final consideration for acceptance.

Kind regards,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS One

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 15 2026 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 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,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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:

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your efforts.

I have carefully reviewed the full set of comments provided by Reviewer 1 and 2 across rounds 1, 2, and 3, as well as the authors’ detailed responses and the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript. In addition, I reassessed the comments from Reviewer 1 and the current version of the manuscript in its entirety.

Overall, I consider that the authors have responded adequately to the vast majority of the concerns raised by both reviewers. Many of the major issues identified by Reviewer 1 have been addressed satisfactorily, and the manuscript has improved substantially over successive rounds of revision. Importantly, the authors clearly state that this is an exploratory study. While the manuscript does not employ advanced statistical analyses, the descriptive data are adequately presented, and the study provides a valuable preliminary evidence base upon which future research can build. In my assessment, this exploratory contribution is appropriate for the journal and of potential interest to its readership.

While I agree that some aspects still require correction and clarification, these remaining issues are, in my view, limited in scope and can be addressed through a focused minor revision rather than warranting rejection.

The main points that still need to be comprehensively revised by the authors are confined to the Methods section and the Abstract, specifically:

1. Ensuring that the abstract follows the journal’s required structure for headings (introduction, methods, results, conclusions).

2. Providing a clearer and more explicit description of the methodology, including participant selection procedures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sampling strategy, sample size justification with appropriate references, and data collection methods.

3. Clarifying the context of the sampled population (prehospital vs. intrahospital emergency settings), as this distinction is important for interpreting disaster management practices.

In light of this, after personal evaluation of all review rounds and revisions, I determine that the remaining concerns can be resolved through a final minor revision, explicitly noting that only three well-defined issues remain to be addressed prior to final consideration for acceptance.

Kind regards,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS One

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have comprehensively addressed the methodological, presentation, and reporting concerns raised by the reviewers. The manuscript presents an important mixed-methods study, rigorously analyzed in its revised form, and adheres to ethical and data availability standards. The incorporation of a dedicated synthesis section significantly enhances the value of the mixed-methods design.

**********

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.]

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revision of PONE-D-25-17329R2.docx

US workforce gaps in emergency management: a mixed-methods approach of demographics, capacity, and community engagement

PONE-D-25-17329R3

Dear Dr. Burke,

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,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the evaluation of the third revision of your manuscript.

As previously indicated, this third round of revision was assessed directly by me, as the remaining comments and points for improvement concerned three specific and clearly defined issues suitable for resolution through a minor revision.

I have now carefully reviewed your responses and the corresponding modifications to the manuscript. I am pleased to confirm that all comments have been adequately addressed and that the revised version meets the standards required for publication.

I am therefore happy to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations on your work.

Reviewers' comments: