Peer Review History
Original SubmissionMay 18, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-14823 The longitudinal impact of employment, retirement and disability status on depressive symptoms in HIV-positive men in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ware, 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. From my own reading of the manuscript, I agree with the reviewers comments (below). Please carefully consider each of the comments and incorporate as appropriate. I look forward to receiving your revision soon. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 2020 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ethan Morgan 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 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: "The MACS is primarily funded by the National 342 Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, with additional co-funding from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Targeted supplemental funding for specific projects was also provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute on Deafness and Communication Disorders. MACS data collection is also supported by grant UL1-TR000424 (Johns Hopkins University Institute for Clinical and Translational Research) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. This research was supported by the NIH via interagency agreement with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and other NIH Cooperative Agreements (U01-HD-32632): Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the US government." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The authors received no specific funding for this work." 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, 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 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. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Overall, this study utilizes a well-known and conducted research cohort, yet still manages to assess a novel question that will contribute to current literature. This is a very good paper with well-written and thought out analyses and results. The discussion is well developed and appropriately follows the findings. I only had a few suggestions below for the authors to consider. 1. I would suggest removing retirement findings from the results as they are non-significant, or at least moving it to the end of the paragraph after the significant findings. 2. Any hypothesis as to why those 60-69 had reduced odds of depression risk? 3. I would suggest including N’s for the models in each of table 2, 3, and 4 Reviewer #2: I commend the authors for seeking to look at healthy aging and employment among men living with HIV. This is a robust data set and provides ample opportunity to examine changes in labor engagement and mental health across the lifespan. I believe this manuscript has potential to make an important contribution and I have outlined suggested revisions and concerns below. Comments: 1. The paragraph in the introduction on benefits/risks of retirement feels a bit disjointed. Revisiting this paragraph to clarify the primary point with better flow between supporting (or conflicting) studies would make it clearer why studying retirement specifically is important. 2. In line 75, participants are referred to as HIV-positive men. Elsewhere the preferred person-first language “People living with HIV” is used. Here, I suggest changing the language to “men living with HIV” in this sentence. People first, non-stigmatizing language should be used throughout. HIV-positive status can be changed to HIV status. HIV positive participants can be changed to participants living with HIV. 3. Social support is identified as a covariate but it isn’t explained why this construct would be important to include in the methods or introduction but it is mentioned briefly in the discussion. I suggest making it more clear why this is included and potentially discussing it’s link as an implied mechanism for linking mental health and labor engagement. 4. More detail about the depression measure would be helpful. How could a participant achieve a score of 16 to exceed the clinical threshold? For a reader to know this, the scoring on individual items should be reported. For example, on the CESD items are typically rated by frequency ranging from 0 to 3. 5. How many participants required imputation for missing employment status? Were any sensitivity checks completed to see if the imputation approach to missingness changed results? Similarly, why was this approach used for employment but not disability and retirement? 6. How was the index visit chosen and what does this mean? 7. The authors make the point (without citation) that the link between labor related determinants and depression is expected to be lagged, however, it is unclear why a 2 year lag was chosen. At the aggregate level it appears justified that average sample levels of depression may lag behind major labor market shifts quite slowly but it’s less clear why unemployment would take two years to impact mental health, particularly if in that two years employment status changes again. Because conclusions are drawn about implied causality, it is important to justify this time lag. There may be a number of confounding events or factors in that two year window that could also contribute to mental health. 8. The authors refer to both within and between subjects differences in the methods, however, no within subjects analysis was conducted. The repeated measures statement in SAS typically uses subject ID to indicate within the model that some data points belong to the same participant and are thus non-independent. Repeated measures from multiple subjects do provide more robust data however it appears only between subjects results are reported in this study. Some clarification would help to make it clear that the results are between-subjects only. 9. It should be stated in text that retirement was not associated with odds of depression risk. The confidence band include 1.0 and the p-value is far from the alpha = .05 significance or even p = .10 marginal significance. Likewise in the discussion it is inappropriate to draw conclusions that retirement is associated with better mental health. This is not supported by the study results. 10. How might retirement status be confounded with age? Perhaps a different study design would be more appropriate for examining the impact of retirement. That is, younger individuals are highly unlikely to retire thus providing little variance in retirement data earlier in life. A within-person analysis would better answer the question whether an individual’s mental health is different when they retire. The introduction appeared to frame the paper, in part, around aging and retirement but the methods didn’t really focus on this age group or life transition. I do agree with authors that understanding how retirement is related to health is important in the aging cohort of men living with HIV, but don’t feel this paper really provides much insight into that process. Editorial notes: There are some minor editorial changes needed to ensure the same and correct tense is used across sections (for example, hypotheses should be in past tense). ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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. |
Revision 1 |
The longitudinal impact of employment, retirement and disability status on depressive symptoms among men living with HIV in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study PONE-D-20-14823R1 Dear Dr. Ware, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Ethan Morgan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-14823R1 The longitudinal impact of employment, retirement and disability status on depressive symptoms among men living with HIV in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study Dear Dr. Ware: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Ethan Morgan Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .