Peer Review History
Original SubmissionDecember 1, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-37818 Student Reactions to Traumatic Material in Literature: Implications for Trigger Warnings PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kimble, 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: My comments are attached. Please address all the points raised below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 2021 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, Kenta Matsumura Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors have attended to the concerns expressed in the previous round of review comments in the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript is much improved—thank you. However, as a new academic editor, I believe that the following issues should also be addressed before this manuscript is considered for publication. Of particular interest is what would have happened if the “accepting trigger warnings” group had been exposed to the physical and sexual assault passage against their will. There was no experimental condition to test this scenario, so the analyzed data were derived from participants who decided to read the physical and sexual assault passages of their own free will, despite the trigger warning. This point should be addressed in the discussion. This is a potential issue of selection bias, which often occurs in the experimental settings. In addition, please clearly distinguish in the abstract which results were derived from all participants (e.g., the rate of ≥96%) and which were derived from those who decided to read triggering passages of their own free will, despite the trigger warning. Please do not combine these two groups. “Fourteen participants elected to read the alternative passage.”(P.16): How did the authors treat this group in the analysis? It seems like they were initially assigned to the “trigger” group by the experimenter, but were actually exposed to “control” group stimuli of their own free will. Please specify the treatment of this group (e.g., excluding them from the Fig 1-4 analysis; including them in the “trigger” group). In addition, please consider re-analyzing or conducting additional analyses to assign them to a third category, such as “non-triggering alternative,” rather than including them in the “trigger” or “control” groups, if possible. Please add the effect size to every result, such as t(23)=4.03, p<.01, Cohen’s d=0.78; F(1,20)=0.15, n.s., partial eta squared=0.02. The authors used a mixed-design ANOVA. Please conduct Mauchly's sphericity test and apply the G-G or H-F correction where appropriate. Each figure needs to be independent from the main text and have a title and caption. Abbreviations should be defined. For example, does the error bar represent SD or SEM? Further, please add the number of participants assigned to each group (e.g., Trigger (n=…), Other (n=…)). Please add the number of participants wherever possible. For example, “There was no significant difference in PCL scores on Day 1 between those who dropped out and those who did not…”(P. 16) should be “… who dropped out (n=…) and those who did not (n=…) …” Please consider using Tukey’s HSD test or Ryan’s method instead of using the LSD post hoc test. The authors should be aware of the risk of Type I error in multiple comparison. The authors state, “The majority of participants (n=319) were randomly assigned to the “Trigger Passage” as opposed to…”(P. 13), but “Of the 316 individuals assigned to read the triggering passage,…”(P. 16). Why do these two numbers differ? Which statistical software did the authors use? 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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 |
Student Reactions to Traumatic Material in Literature: Implications for Trigger Warnings PONE-D-20-37818R1 Dear Dr. Kimble, 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, Kenta Matsumura Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors treated all the comments adequately, thank you. Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-37818R1 Student Reactions to Traumatic Material in Literature:Implications for Trigger Warnings Dear Dr. Kimble: 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. Kenta Matsumura 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 .