Protocol for a scoping review on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in community practice

Ofir Sivan; Ali Pearson; Stephanie Begun

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346869

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 15, 2025
11 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Wei Lang, Editor Dear Dr. Sivan, 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 Apr 25 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Wei Lang, Ph.D. 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 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.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: The manuscript is methodologically rigorous and fills a critical gap in the intersection of social work and ICTs research, holding significant theoretical and practical value. To further enhance its academic impact, improvements could be made in the following areas: 1、Methodology (1)Search Strategy The manuscript adheres to the Arksey & O’Malley framework and PRISMA-P guidelines, demonstrating a robust methodological foundation. But, also need Include concrete examples of search strings (e.g., for Sociological Abstracts) and explain optimizations (e.g., synonym expansion). (2)Geographical Restrictions The rationale for limiting empirical studies to the U.S. and Canada requires stronger justification. Clarify how these regions’ community practice theories and practices align theoretically to avoid exclusionary biases. (3)Temporal Scope: The 2015–2025 timeframe risks omitting pre-pandemic or foundational studies. Address how this choice might influence the comprehensiveness of findings. 2、Data analysis (1)Quantitative Analysis Specify hypothesis testing methods (e.g., chi-square tests, t-tests) for bivariate analyses to strengthen rigor. (2)Qualitative Analysis Elaborate on thematic analysis procedures, including coding processes, theme generation methods, and intercoder reliability checks. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r001
Revision 1
23 Mar 2026 Author Response Dear Editor-in-Chief Wei Lang and the PLOS One Editorial Board, On behalf of my co-authors, PhD Candidate Ali Pearson and Professor Stephanie Begun, I am submitting the enclosed revised Study Protocol for review by the PLOS One editorial Board. We thank you for your thorough revisions and are confident that your comments will improve the final manuscript. Reviewer #1: The manuscript is methodologically rigorous and fills a critical gap in the intersection of social work and ICTs research, holding significant theoretical and practical value. To further enhance its academic impact, improvements could be made in the following areas: Methodology (1) Search Strategy: The manuscript adheres to the Arksey & O’Malley framework and PRISMA-P guidelines, demonstrating a robust methodological foundation. But also needs to include concrete examples of search strings (e.g., for Sociological Abstracts) and explain optimizations (e.g., synonym expansion). Response: Thank you for this comment. We elaborated our search strategy optimization methods (e.g., thesaurus and keyword search, truncations, wildcards) under the subtitle “Identifying Relevant Literature” in the Methods section. An example of a complete search string is attached, as supporting information (S1). The string is too long to be included in the manuscript itself. (2) Geographical Restrictions: The rationale for limiting empirical studies to the U.S. and Canada requires stronger justification. Clarify how these regions’ community practice theories and practices align theoretically to avoid exclusionary biases. Response: Thank you for this comment. We provided a stronger justification for limiting empirical to the U.S. and Canada under “Screening Eligible Studies” in the Methods section. We also address the potential limitations posed by these geographical restrictions in our Discussion section. (3) Temporal Scope: The 2015–2025 timeframe risks omitting pre-pandemic or foundational studies. Address how this choice might influence the comprehensiveness of findings. Response: We mentioned the pandemic as a reference point to justify the 2015–2025 timeframe to demonstrate that this timeframe can also be productive in tracing the impact of COVID-19 on the relationships between ICTs and community practice. While findings may suggest insights into the impact of the pandemic on the relationship between community practice and ICTs, this is not the primary question asked in this review. Accordingly, we provided a more detailed rationale for this timeframe, anchoring it in relation to the Social Work Grand Challenges framework (specifically Harness Technology for Social Good). Data analysis (1) Quantitative Analysis: Specify hypothesis testing methods (e.g., chi-square tests, t-tests) for bivariate analyses to strengthen rigor. Response: We elaborated on hypothesis testing methods in Data Analysis and Synthesis in the Methods section. (2) Qualitative Analysis: Elaborate on thematic analysis procedures, including coding processes, theme generation methods, and intercoder reliability checks. Response: We elaborated on thematic analysis procedures in Data Analysis and Synthesis in the Methods section. Additional Changes #: (1) Refining Conceptualization: Based on the community social work literature, we replaced the expression “grassroots organizing/advocacy” with “community organizing”. In the North American social work literature, the term “community organizing” is widely used to encompass local grassroots organizing, organizational coalition building, and participatory advocacy. (2) Proofreading & Clarifications: We thoroughly proofread and added clarification in several places throughout the manuscript. All changes can be traced in the track-changes version of the manuscript. Sincerely, Ofir Sivan, MSW, RSW PhD Student, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 23 March 2026.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r002
25 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Wei Lang, Editor Protocol for a Scoping Review on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Community Practice PONE-D-25-55788R1 Dear Dr. Sivan, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, Wei Lang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: The revisions not only addressed the key concerns raised by the reviewers but also strengthened the scientific rigor and methodological soundness of the study. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Wei Lang, Editor PONE-D-25-55788R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Sivan, 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. Wei Lang Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.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 .