Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 7, 2023
Decision Letter - Grant Rich, Editor

PONE-D-23-22761Older adults’ suggestions of research topics on ageing well in urban environments – a participatory studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oeser

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 Oct 13 2023 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:

  • 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,

Grant Rich, 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information."

3. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Aging in Human Health and Disease Call for Papers. This call for papers aims to highlight the excellent work being done by researchers across the world on the subject of aging. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/call-for-papers/aging-in-human-health-and-disease/. If accepted, your submission will be included within the collection. Please note that being considered for the Collection does not require an additional peer review beyond the journal’s standard process and will not delay the publication of your manuscript if it is accepted by PLOS ONE. If you have any questions or concerns about this process, please contact the journal at plosone@plos.org.

4. 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 (if provided):

Your topic is excellent and significant and the methods appropriate. Please submit a minor revision- I suggest you consult an English speaking helper to improve a few passages in the writing that may be improved for clarity and fluency. Please address the comments of both reviewers below- for reviewer two you may wish to consult or cite classic lifespan development work by Bea Neugarten at the University of Chicago on "young old" vs "old old" to distinguish say, persons aged 55 to 65 vs those 85 to 95, and perhaps her work on "social clock" and on time vs "off time" development as well as work by her modern colleague at U Chicago Rick (Richard) Shweder's work on Middle Age and aging from cultural construction/anthropological view.

---

REVIEWER 1

Accept

While not a quantitative study, the numerical data makes sense and aligns with qualitative practices.

Please update quotation marks to standard US English formatting. Check the use of "sealing" and "seating" on lines 169 and 171. Are these supposed to be the same word?

REVIEWER 2 Major revision

The idea of looking at "older adults health needs" is very valuable, but it seems that the inclusion of all participants in the age brackets (65 +) can be confusing. Authors should clarify if they are combining all "older adults"? If so, this can be problematic because the needs of this population and as such research needs can vary according to the specific chronological ages. That is a 65-year-old person's needs can be quite different than an eighty-year-old, although there could be important similarities. Clarification of the cohort groups and what are the common characteristics they share is required. Additionally, and because of these different characteristics of the cohort groups, need to be defined more clearly. It is recommended that the authors strengthen the categories with a clearer definition of the different ages and specific needs.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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: While not a quantitative study, the numerical data makes sense and aligns with qualitative practices.

Please update quotation marks to standard US English formatting. Check the use of "sealing" and "seating" on lines 169 and 171. Are these supposed to be the same word?

Reviewer #2: The idea of looking at "older adults health needs" is very valuable, but it seems that the inclusion of all participants in the age brackets (65 +) can be confusing. Authors should clarify if they are combining all "older adults"? If so, this can be problematic because the needs of this population and as such research needs can vary according to the specific chronological ages. That is a 65-year-old person's needs can be quite different than an eighty-year-old, although there could be important similarities. Clarification of the cohort groups and what are the common characteristics they share is required. Additionally, and because of these different characteristics of the cohort groups, need to be defined more clearly. It is recommended that the authors strengthen the categories with a clearer definition of the different ages and specific needs.

**********

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: Stephanie Elizabeth Beckman

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.

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

Grant J. Rich, PhD

 Candidate for President-Elect for the American Psychological Association Twitter/X: @GrantJRich4APA 

President-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA)  President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA)

Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS)  Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA) (D1, D2, D46, D48, D52)

Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden University  Editorial Board Member: PLOS ONE, APA's Peace & Conflict, APA's Traumatology

Book Series Co-Editor w/ Anthony Marsella (U. Hawai'i), Springer. International and Cultural Psychology (ICUP)       

 https://www.springer.com/series/6089 Select Recent Books

(Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017). Internationalizing the Teaching of Psychology. IAP.

(Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018). Human Strengths and Resilience: Cross Cultural and International Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield..

(Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020). Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge.

(Rich & Ramkumar, 2022). Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean. Springer.

(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, 2023). Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA.  Elsevier. 

(Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract). Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice. Springer.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for considering our manuscript and taking the time to give valuable comments. We implemented all your revisions and updated the manuscript accordingly. Furthermore, we corrected a small error in the number of participants that we found during revision. We now think that the manuscript has greatly improved and hope that it is acceptable for publication. Below, we reply to your comments point by point.

EDITOR

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 ...

We checked the manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements according to your templates and updated the file names prior to uploading the revision.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information."

Participants were asked to answer the questionnaire anonymously and were informed that by answering, implied consent was given to participate and for publication of the results. We updated the methods section and the online submission information accordingly.

3. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Aging in Human Health and Disease Call for Papers. […]

We are grateful that our manuscript is being considered for the Aging in Human Health and Disease Call for Papers and that we can contribute to the collection.

4. 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.

We made three changes to the reference list: we updated the format of reference no. 1 and no. 2 and added URLS to the respective databases. Also, reference no. 13 (Neugarten BL. Age Groups in American Society and the Rise of the Young-Old) was added.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/.

The figure we use in the manuscript is now processed by PACE and will be re-uploaded in the new format.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your topic is excellent and significant and the methods appropriate. Please submit a minor revision - I suggest you consult an English speaking helper to improve a few passages in the writing that may be improved for clarity and fluency.

We have revised the manuscript together with an English speaking colleague to improve text flow and clarity.

---

REVIEWER 1

Please update quotation marks to standard US English formatting.

Thank you for your revisions on the manuscript. As part of the language editing for this revision, we corrected the passages in which we are using quotation marks to fit the US English formatting.

Check the use of "sealing" and "seating" on lines 169 and 171. Are these supposed to be the same word?

The first quote mentioning “sealing” refers to the sealing of soil in urban green spaces, while the second quote “seating” refers to seating possibilities. We changed the wording in the manuscript to make the difference clearer (lines 179-181 in the manuscript with mark-ups).

---

REVIEWER 2

The idea of looking at "older adults health needs" is very valuable, but it seems that the inclusion of all participants in the age brackets (65 +) can be confusing. Authors should clarify if they are combining all "older adults"? If so, this can be problematic because the needs of this population and as such research needs can vary according to the specific chronological ages. That is a 65-year-old person's needs can be quite different than an eighty-year-old, although there could be important similarities. Clarification of the cohort groups and what are the common characteristics they share is required. Additionally, and because of these different characteristics of the cohort groups, need to be defined more clearly. It is recommended that the authors strengthen the categories with a clearer definition of the different ages and specific needs.

Thank you very much for this important comment. Due to data security reasons, we decided not to ask for additional demographic data of the participants, such as age and socioeconomic status to keep the data anonymous. We acknowledge that the needs and research ideas of different age groups can be quite different. Thus, we added a paragraph in the limitations sections of the manuscript describing this inherent limitation of our study.

Kind regards,

Philip Oeser on behalf of all the authors

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Grant Rich, Editor

Older adults’ suggestions of research topics on ageing well in urban environments – a participatory study

PONE-D-23-22761R1

Dear Drs Oeser, Bruckmann, Gellert, and Herrmann

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,

Grant Rich, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors, you have now made the required revisions, and I am happy to accept this valuable article for publication, Dr Rich

Reviewers' comments:

Grant J. Rich, PhD

 

Candidate for President-Elect for the American Psychological Association

 

Twitter/X: @GrantJRich4APA

 

President-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA)

 

President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA)

Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS)

 

Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA) (D1, D2, D46, D48, D52)

Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden University

 

Editorial Board Member: PLOS ONE, APA's Peace & Conflict, APA's Traumatology

Book Series Co-Editor w/ Anthony Marsella (U. Hawai'i), Springer. International and Cultural Psychology (ICUP)       

 https://www.springer.com/series/6089

 

Select Recent Books

(Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017). Internationalizing the Teaching of Psychology. IAP.

(Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018). Human Strengths and Resilience: Cross Cultural and International Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield.

(Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020). Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge.

  

(Rich & Ramkumar, 2022). Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean  (Foreword by past APA President Frank Worrell).Springer.

 

.(Foreword by past APA President Tony Puente).(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, 2023) Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA Elsevier.

 

(Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract). Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice. Springer.

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Grant Rich, Editor

PONE-D-23-22761R1

Older adults’ suggestions of research topics on ageing well in urban environments – a participatory study

Dear Dr. Oeser:

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. Grant Rich

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 .