Peer Review History
Original SubmissionMarch 19, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-09160 Influenza vaccination hesitancy in large urban centers in South America. Qualitative analysis of confidence, complacency and convenience across risk groups PLOS ONE Dear Dr. González-Block, 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 Jun 10 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. 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, Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "consent was obtained from participants". In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified: - whether consent was informed - what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). 3. Please provide more information on the focus group structure and how data was collected from these in your methods section. In addition, if there was a semi-structured guide to topics covered, questions asked, themes explored, etc. please provide this as a supplementary file. 4. 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: 4a) 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. 4b) 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: This project was financially supported by Sanofi Pasteur. Elsa Sarti is an employee of Sanofi Pasteur and played a role in the design of the study. All other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to report. We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Sanofi Pasteur. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No ********** 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: No 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: This manuscript describes the finding of an impressively large focus group study on vaccine hesitancy with a total of 20 focus groups conducted in 5 South American countries. It's greatest strengths are the obvious timeliness of the topic and the richness of the data, which come through in the authors ample use of quotations from participants. The paper is written is clear, easy-to-follow prose without jargon, making it accessible to a broad audience (there are a fair number of typos, though, so additional proofreading is recommended). Nevertheless, I have a number of fairly significant concerns about the manuscript in its current form, mainly as data analysis is concerned, but also with several other aspects. 1. Data analysis procedures are not described in sufficient detail. The authors merely specify that data were coded thematically and don't provide any details on how exactly themes were identified, how coding with multiple coders was coordinated and how consistency was ensured, etc. Significantly more is needed here. 2. The authors do not provide any explanation of why focus groups where chosen as opposed to, e.g., individual interviews. Especially with potential concerns about health information and social desirability bias, I'm not convinced this was the right choice -- it definitely requires a justification as part of the paper's methods section. 3. The paper doesn't provide sufficient information about data collection. It would be common to provide basic demographic information about FG participants. I'd also want to know a bit more about recruitment strategies as well as the design of the focus group discussions. Generally speaking, I would encourage authors to follow reporting guidelines for qualitative research such as COREQ (https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 ) 4. The paper's analysis remains somewhat superficial. It gives a point-by-point discussion of the different themes identified, but does little to relate them to each other or make sense of them in the context of the different participating groups. Tables 2-4 are, on the one hand, useful as summaries, but on the other so detailed as to hide any significant analytic points that could be learned from comparing across different risk groups. Given the significant effort involved in conducting a five-country study, it's also somewhat disappointing that the authors do not take any advantage of this in systematically comparing across cases. 5. The data availability statement is insufficient as per the PLOS data policy. If data can be shared, it should be deposited in a data repository, not per request from the lead author. If the ethics protocol does not allow data sharing (which would be understandable given the nature of the data), this needs to be clearly stated, though authors should consider at a minimum a detailed summary of themes and associated descriptions and excerpts in that case. Taken together, these are significant shortcomings. If editors decide to invite the authors to submit a revised version (which may well be warranted in spite of these shortcomings, due to the richness of the underlying data), I would encourage significant revisions with a focus on methods and methodology. Reviewer #2: 1. FGD process could have been documented better 2. Not clear - whether double note takers were there to cross check the tonality and non verbal cues of the participants 3. RICE analysis could be done on FGD audio transcript to measure frequency of usage of significant phrases 4. FGD could follow maximum variance sampling instead of homogenous grouping to capture diversity of views 5. It could analyze the inter regional variance in perception 6. Some kind of multidimensional perception mapping schematic could be presented from thematic analysis ********** 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: Yes: Sebastian Karcher Reviewer #2: Yes: Arindam Ray [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 |
PONE-D-21-09160R1 Influenza vaccination hesitancy in large urban centers in South America. Qualitative analysis of confidence, complacency and convenience across risk groups PLOS ONE Dear Dr. González-Block, 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 Jul 29 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. 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, Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. 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 ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ********** 4. 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 ********** 5. 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 ********** 6. 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: Thank you for the revisions. Overall the manuscript is significantly improved and I only have relatively minor remaining comments. Specifically I think my comments about cross-country comparison and description of FG methodology have been fully addressed. Some areas should still be improved before publication, though: 1. I think the justification for focus groups remains weak. A 1993 book saying the technique has been "validated" isn't a helpful citation: The concern isn't that focus groups aren't a valid form of qualitative inquiry (they are!), but whether they are the best form for the specific question at hand and what trade off their use has compared to alternative methods (different forms of semi-structured interviews, e.g.). Authors may decided that this works better in the discussion/limitations section of their paper rather than their methods section (this is just a suggestion -- as long as it is explicitly discussed, I have no preference as to where). For example, authors allude to "participant interaction" in focus groups -- a major strength of the method. It's unclear, however, why interaction is important for the individual-level attitudes authors are interested in. E.g., none of the presented excerpts show elements of interaction. I'm not saying it isn't important, but it is incumbent on the authors to make that case. 2. While the discussion of the coding methodology is significantly improved, I'm still not sure how consistency of coding was ensured. Multiple people coded the transcripts -- but each transcript was coded by only one author? By multiple coders in a group? After coding, author BP checked every code? Did they then overrule any disagreements? Were there none? The coding process a crucial part of qualitative methodology. Readers need to be able to understand fully and in detail how it was conducted. If there are elements that would be tedious or overly lengthy in the main article, pointing to a supplementary file is encouraged. 3. A minor point: Now that authors do much more with the cross-country comparison (which, to re-iterate, I think is great), I'd appreciate a small table comparing the countries, in particular in terms of vaccination rates (it's up to the authors if they want to include any other country characteristics). ********** 7. 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: Yes: Sebastian Karcher [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 2 |
Influenza vaccination hesitancy in large urban centers in South America. Qualitative analysis of confidence, complacency and convenience across risk groups PONE-D-21-09160R2 Dear Dr. González-Block, 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, Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-09160R2 Influenza vaccination hesitancy in large urban centers in South America. Qualitative analysis of confidence, complacency and convenience across risk groups Dear Dr. González-Block: 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 Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg 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 .