SI said that she could see that I had struggled to make the method and results section better, but what was missing still was mainly a discussion that deepened the value of the results. RL thought that the paper was still “basic,” and that I needed to get it more holistic, make it more clear to the reader what value this study and this paper added to the field. Since the discussion of the manuscript was quite detailed I decided here below to provide headings of the sections of the manuscript commented on:
RL found that the introduction in its current state had a “telegraphic style” and that I stopped when it started to get interesting1 This is also criticism that I received by my reviewers at the half-time review.. Thus, he suggested me to dig deeper. One way of doing that was to give the reader some more information about the studies that I referred to such as what methodologies they used, what sample they included, etc. In this way, I could better motivate why this larger study in Sweden was needed. This would make it more clear to the reader that relatively basic knowledge is needed in this field and that this study constitutes a necessary first step. Also, before the research question, RL suggested me to lay out to the reader what I am going to present in order to make it easier to follow the paper.
RL thought that including age group on a descriptive level would illustrate what sample we are dealing with, even if there are no significant differences (in awareness, previous experience and willingness) between these age groups. After some discussion we decided to add a descriptive research question to the study. Since we also have data on how many are working and how many are retired thatcould be interesting to include as well. We thus decided to ad the following research question to the study: How are the attitudes and awareness related to age (and employment status)?. However, including retirement status is only possible if there are enough people in the sample that are working so that is something that I need to check before I include employment status.
In the methods section I was told that I needed to add the independent varables and explain confounders. Also the variable retired vs. not retired if it turns out that enough people in the sample are not retired.
The results section needed to be elaborated and more stringent in accordance with the comments that had been provided to me separately in response to the manuscript I sent out.
What was mostly missing in the current manuscript, according to my supervisors, was a discussion that deepened the value of the results. A few examples were mentioned of of what could/should be brought into the discussion section:
In the conclusion it should, in the next version of the manuscript, be clearly stated what the key messages and contributions of this study are.
Next version of the manuscript needs also to contain proper references.
Concerning the language in the manuscript, OJ, RL and SI had the following remarks:
We decided that we will send the manuscript to the journal PLOS ONE.
I also gave a short summary of where we are at in relation to my study III. I informed that I will send out an almost finished version of the ethical applicaton to SI, OJ and Marianne on April 6, and then the plan is to submit the application as soon as possible after that. A few things wer pointed out by my supervisors, namely:
We decided that next supervision will be on May 21 at 9.00-10.30.