NOTICE: This document contains correspondence generated during peer review and subsequent revisions but before transmittal to production for composition and copyediting:
• Comments from the reviewers and editors (email to author requesting revisions)
• Response from the author (cover letter submitted with revised manuscript)*
*The corresponding author has opted to make this information publicly available.
Personal or nonessential information may be redacted at the editor’s discretion.
Questions about these materials may be directed to the Obstetrics & Gynecology editorial office:
obgyn@greenjournal.org.
Date: Jun 06, 2022 To: "Reed Bratches"
From: "The Green Journal" em@greenjournal.org Subject: Your Submission ONG-22-888
RE: Manuscript Number ONG-22-888
Video recording policies: an opportunity to foster transparency and trust in obstetrics and gynecology.
Dear Dr. Bratches:
Thank you for sending us your work for consideration for publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Your manuscript has been reviewed by the Editorial Board and by special expert referees. The Editors would like to invite you to submit a revised version for further consideration.
If you wish to revise your manuscript, please read the following comments submitted by the reviewers and Editors. Each point raised requires a response, by either revising your manuscript or making a clear argument as to why no revision is needed in the cover letter.
To facilitate our review, we prefer that the cover letter you submit with your revised manuscript include each reviewer and Editor comment below, followed by your response. That is, a point-by-point response is required to each of the EDITOR COMMENTS (if applicable), REVIEWER COMMENTS, STATISTICAL EDITOR COMMENTS (if applicable), and EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS below. Your manuscript will be returned to you if a point-by-point response to each of these sections is not included.
The revised manuscript should indicate the position of all changes made. Please use the "track changes" feature in your document (do not use strikethrough or underline formatting).
Your submission will be maintained in active status for 14 days from the date of this letter. If we have not heard from you by Jun 20, 2022, we will assume you wish to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration.
REVIEWER COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1: This is a nicely written commentary on videotaping during delivery. My only comment would be to expand on the additional benefit of improving transparency and trust. It is part of the title, but discussed less in the manuscript in relation to videotaping birth.
Reviewer #2: This is a personal perspective about recording of births by patients and their families. Recording of medical procedures and visits is a subject that has many complex legal, ethical, and other individual and organizational
components to consider and can be challenging to develop a policy that everyone involved agrees with. In this article, the author provides some valid and unique aspects to consider from the perspective of a family member and quality
improvement of the clinicians and organization. These are a good starting point for discussions about revisiting or initiating a birth recording policy. However, the article does not include all considerations from clinician and legal perspectives and would benefit from more discussion of why organizations and clinicians oppose recording.
Line 31 - there are state laws also about legal requirements for recording Line 34-36 - these are also used for patient education
Line 36-38 - please support this statement (reference, etc.) Line 50-54 - reference please for these two cases
Line 56-57 - reference please for this sentence
View Letter
1 of 4 7/14/2022, 1:40 PM
Line 49-57 - lawsuits are not the only concern for restrictive video policy. Please include other reasons here, such as possible disruption to care, need for consent of all healthcare personnel recorded, posting to social media, etc.
Line 78-80 - reference here and please provide more detail, such as who does the recording, what is recorded, etc. Are these recordings accessible to patients? Or is this only for provider and health system purposes?
Reviewer #3:
Overall: This is an interesting take on video recording policies in the medical context, with some focus on recording of deliveries.
Title: Video recording policies: an opportunity to foster transparency and trust in obstetrics and gynecology.
Line 8: Clinic staff or hospital staff?
Lines 14-19: Interchanges pregnant/birthing partner and spouse and creates a confusing picture of what is occurring.
Consider consistent language throughout.
Line 31: Each state has their own laws, as well. Would benefit from explanation of one-party vs two party vs all party consent. Should someone recording be required to get the consent of every person in the video (or just those on camera or those in the audio)?
Lines 46-47: Is there information on how traumatic birth scenarios or outcomes are processed in the wake of a video?
Lines 49-57: Is there information on to back up these claims? How does one handle when there is video evidence of a bad outcome that otherwise could or could not have been prevented? What about in litigious states?
Lines 87-92: I feel like this section needs to be expanded upon. If this is already occurring, at what rate, and does this have any effect on privacy concerns or the provider-patient relationship?
EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS:
1. If your article is accepted, the journal will publish a copy of this revision letter and your point-by-point responses as supplemental digital content to the published article online. You may opt out by writing separately to the Editorial Office at em@greenjournal.org, and only the revision letter will be posted.
2. When you submit your revised manuscript, please make the following edits to ensure your submission contains the required information that was previously omitted for the initial double-blind peer review:
* Funding information (ie, grant numbers or industry support statements) should be disclosed on the title page and at the end of the abstract. For industry-sponsored studies, describe on the title page how the funder was or was not involved in the study.
* Include clinical trial registration numbers, PROSPERO registration numbers, or URLs at the end of the abstract (if applicable).
* Name the IRB or Ethics Committee institution in the Methods section (if applicable).
* Add any information about the specific location of the study (ie, city, state, or country), if necessary for context.
3. Obstetrics & Gynecology's Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA) must be completed by all authors. When you uploaded your manuscript, each coauthor received an email with the subject, "Please verify your authorship for a submission to Obstetrics & Gynecology." Please ask your coauthor(s) to complete this form, and confirm the disclosures listed in their CTA are included on the manuscript's title page. If they did not receive the email, they should check their spam/junk folder.
Requests to resend the CTA may be sent to em@greenjournal.org.
4. ACOG uses person-first language. Please review your submission to make sure to center the person before anything else. Examples include: "Patients with obesity" instead of "obese patients," "Women with disabilities" instead of "disabled women," "women with HIV" instead of "HIV-positive women," "women who are blind" instead of "blind women."
5. Make sure your manuscript meets the following word limit. The word limit includes the manuscript body text only (for example, the Introduction through the Discussion in Original Research manuscripts), and excludes the title page, précis, abstract, tables, boxes, and figure legends, reference list, and supplemental digital content. Figures are not included in the word count.
Personal Perspectives and Junior Fellow Personal Perspectives: 2,000 words
View Letter
4 7/14/2022, 1:40 PM
Clinical Conundrums: 1,500 words
6. For your title, please note the following style points and make edits as needed:
* Do not structure the title as a declarative statement or a question.
* Introductory phrases such as "A study of..." or "Comprehensive investigations into..." or "A discussion of..." should be avoided in titles.
* Abbreviations, jargon, trade names, formulas, and obsolete terminology should not be used.
* Titles should include "A Randomized Controlled Trial," "A Meta-Analysis," "A Systematic Review," or "A Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis" as appropriate, in the subtitle. If your manuscript is not one of these four types, do not specify the type of manuscript in the title.
7. Specific rules govern the use of acknowledgments in the journal. Please review the following guidelines and edit your title page as needed:
* All financial support of the study must be acknowledged.
* Any and all manuscript preparation assistance, including but not limited to topic development, data collection, analysis, writing, or editorial assistance, must be disclosed in the acknowledgments. Such acknowledgments must identify the entities that provided and paid for this assistance, whether directly or indirectly.
* All persons who contributed to the work reported in the manuscript, but not sufficiently to be authors, must be acknowledged. Written permission must be obtained from all individuals named in the acknowledgments, as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions. Please note that your response in the journal's electronic author form verifies that permission has been obtained from all named persons.
* If all or part of the paper was presented at the Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or at any other organizational meeting, that presentation should be noted (include the exact dates and location of the meeting or indicate whether the meeting was held virtually).
* If your manuscript was uploaded to a preprint server prior to submitting your manuscript to Obstetrics & Gynecology, add the following statement to your title page: "Before submission to Obstetrics & Gynecology, this article was posted to a preprint server at: [URL]."
* Do not use only authors' initials in the acknowledgement or Financial Disclosure; spell out their names the way they appear in the byline.
8. Provide a short title of no more than 45 characters, including spaces, for use as a running foot. Do not start the running title with an abbreviation.
9. Provide a précis for use in the Table of Contents. The précis is a single sentence of no more than 25 words that states the conclusion(s) of the report (ie, the bottom line). The précis should be similar to the abstract's conclusion. Do not use commercial names, abbreviations, or acronyms in the précis. Please avoid phrases like "This paper presents" or "This case presents."
10. Only standard abbreviations and acronyms are allowed. A selected list is available online at http://edmgr.ovid.com /ong/accounts/abbreviations.pdf. Abbreviations and acronyms cannot be used in the title or précis. Abbreviations and acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used in the abstract and again in the body of the manuscript.
11. The journal does not use the virgule symbol (/) in sentences with words, except with ratios. Please rephrase your text to avoid using "and/or," or similar constructions throughout the text. You may retain this symbol if you are using it to express data or a measurement.
12. Please review examples of our current reference style at https://edmgr.ovid.com/ong/accounts/ifa_suppl_refstyle.pdf.
Include the digital object identifier (DOI) with any journal article references and an accessed date with website references.
Unpublished data, in-press items, personal communications, letters to the editor, theses, package inserts, submissions, meeting presentations, and abstracts may be included in the text but not in the formal reference list. Please cite them on the line in parentheses.
If you cite ACOG documents in your manuscript, be sure the references you are citing are still current and available. Check the Clinical Guidance page at https://www.acog.org/clinical (click on "Clinical Guidance" at the top). If the reference is still available on the site and isn't listed as "Withdrawn," it's still a current document. In most cases, if an ACOG document has been withdrawn, it should not be referenced in your manuscript.
Please make sure your references are numbered in order of appearance in the text.
13. Authors whose manuscripts have been accepted for publication have the option to pay an article processing charge and publish open access. With this choice, articles are made freely available online immediately upon publication. An
information sheet is available at http://links.lww.com/LWW-ES/A48. The cost for publishing an article as open access can be found at https://wkauthorservices.editage.com/open-access/hybrid.html.
If your article is accepted, you will receive an email from the Editorial Office asking you to choose a publication route (traditional or open access). Please keep an eye out for that future email and be sure to respond to it promptly.
View Letter
4 7/14/2022, 1:40 PM
***
If you choose to revise your manuscript, please submit your revision through Editorial Manager at
http://ong.editorialmanager.com. Your manuscript should be uploaded as a Microsoft Word document. Your revision's cover letter should include a point-by-point response to each of the received comments in this letter. Do not omit your responses to the EDITOR COMMENTS (if applicable), the REVIEWER COMMENTS, the STATISTICAL EDITOR COMMENTS (if applicable), or the EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS.
If you submit a revision, we will assume that it has been developed in consultation with your coauthors and that each author has given approval to the final form of the revision.
Again, your manuscript will be maintained in active status for 14 days from the date of this letter. If we have not heard from you by Jun 20, 2022, we will assume you wish to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason D. Wright, MD Editor-in-Chief
2020 IMPACT FACTOR: 7.661
2020 IMPACT FACTOR RANKING: 3rd out of 83 ob/gyn journals __________________________________________________
In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/ong/login.asp?a=r). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.
View Letter ..
4 of 4 7/14/2022, 1:40 PM
Dear Editors and Staff of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
We want to thank the reviewers for their comments. Their feedback is valuable, and our manuscript is stronger after incorporating their suggestions. After responding to their feedback and adding the requested examples, we have made some minor additional changes to the manuscript and added further citations to improve the readability and relevance to the readership of The Green Journal.
Below, please find our responses, with manuscript changes listed in italics.
Please let us know if there are any further clarifications.
Thank you
Reed WR Bratches and Paul J Barr
REVIEWER COMMENTS:
We would like to again thank the reviewers for their helpful feedback, it has improved the quality of our paper.
Reviewer #1: This is a nicely written commentary on videotaping during delivery. My only comment would be to expand on the additional benefit of improving transparency and trust. It is part of the title, but discussed less in the manuscript in relation to videotaping birth.
Author Response: We have added language and a citation from studies including a meta-analysis where improved trust is connected to improved health outcomes.
See page 3, line 23: “
A secondary outcome, however, could be improved accountability. In a recent systematic review of clinic visit recording, clinicians and patients report that the process of being recorded did not change their consultations; if anything, evidence emerged that being recorded may have increased clinician attentiveness and sense of accountability, that improved the quality of their consultation.
20Finally, by agreeing to be recorded and accepting this greater transparency, we hypothesize that clinicians and patients are acknowledging and strengthening their perceived trust in each other; higher levels of trust in healthcare are associated with improved patient health outcomes.
21”Reviewer #2: This is a personal perspective about recording of births by patients and their families.
Recording of medical procedures and visits is a subject that has many complex legal, ethical, and other individual and organizational components to consider and can be challenging to develop a policy that everyone involved agrees with. In this article, the author provides some valid and unique aspects to consider from the perspective of a family member and quality improvement of the clinicians and organization. These are a good starting point for discussions about revisiting or initiating a birth recording policy. However, the article does not include all considerations from clinician and legal perspectives and would benefit from more discussion of why organizations and clinicians oppose recording.
Line 31 - there are state laws also about legal requirements for recording
Author Response: We have updated the text to be more clear about federal and state laws and legal requirements. See Pg 2 line 5 to read “The legal framework to guide recording practices is based on wiretapping laws, which were not designed with health care settings in mind.2 In many states, single party consent is acceptable, where only one person has to agree to be recorded; for example, the person making the recording. In 11 states, recording practices are more stringent, with all party consent
required: all persons on the recording must consent. There are no national policies to guide health systems. While a few have begun to provide patients with recordings of visits routinely, and others explicitly ban visit recording, the majority of health systems have no policy to guide recording practice.3” Line 34-36 - these are also used for patient education
Author Response: We have added a sentence to the end of that paragraph to illustrate the effect of sharing recordings with patients. See page 2, line 18: “
In cases where video recordings are given to patients for their review, viewing has been associated with a range of positive effects including improved recall of medical information, understanding, satisfaction and reduced decisional regret.
5,6”Line 36-38 - please support this statement (reference, etc.)
Author Response: We have added a reference to support this statement and clarified to reflect that consent to treatment documents are signed prior to contact with clinicians. See page 2, line 16:
“
However, the consent to such recording is often covered in a general “consent to treatment”
signed on admission, prior to doctors interacting with patients.
4In cases where video
recordings are given to patients for their review, viewing has been associated with a range of positive effects including improved recall of medical information, understanding, satisfaction and reduced decisional regret.
5,6”
Line 50-54 - reference please for these two cases
Author Response: We have added citations for these two cases. See page 2, line 38 and 39: “In 2007, a video by a father showed a nurse-midwife using excessive force during the birth, which led to a $2.3 million settlement to the family.9 In a 2001 case, a family received a $2 million settlement after a child died due to complications from the birth; the birth records described a healthy delivery while the video showed complications that ultimately were the reason for the child’s death.10”
Line 56-57 - reference please for this sentence
Author Response: We have included a citation for this sentence. See page 2, line 44. “In most cases where recording is permitted, lawsuits do not result.5”
Line 49-57 - lawsuits are not the only concern for restrictive video policy. Please include other reasons here, such as possible disruption to care, need for consent of all healthcare personnel recorded, posting to social media, etc.
Author Response: We have updated this paragraph to note the other concerns that are used to support restrictive video policies. See page 2, line 36: “Despite encouraging evidence, several common concerns exist over the implementation of video recording in clinical practice, including confidentiality,12 consent processes,13 and liability.14”
Line 78-80 - reference here and please provide more detail, such as who does the recording, what is recorded, etc. Are these recordings accessible to patients? Or is this only for provider and health system purposes?
Author Response: We have updated the citation and text to include more information about who the the clinician benefits from insurance providers. See page 3 line 2: “The small risk of claims of malpractice should not detract from the benefit of recordings. Indeed, recordings can also provide evidence of good care, and surveyed attorneys felt that recordings would not expose health systems to additional malpractice risk.17 While there could certainly be variation across states, Arizona insurance providers encourage visit recording by offering clinicians reductions in their malpractice premiums and increased liability coverage.2”
Reviewer #3:
Overall: This is an interesting take on video recording policies in the medical context, with some focus on recording of deliveries.
Title: Video recording policies: an opportunity to foster transparency and trust in obstetrics and gynecology.
Line 8: Clinic staff or hospital staff?
Author Response: This has been changed to hospital staff for clarity.
Lines 14-19: Interchanges pregnant/birthing partner and spouse and creates a confusing picture of what is occurring. Consider consistent language throughout.
Author Response: The language has been updated for consistency to reflect the birthing partner and spouse. See page 1 line 34: “During one of those days, we heard raised voices from the room next door;
an argument quickly spilled into the hallway. We overheard the cause of the quarrel: while the pregnant partner was laboring, their spouse began filming on a cellphone camera. They were disruptive and threatening when asked by clinicians to discuss recording with those in the room; official policy prohibits recording. Hospital security was called when the behavior escalated, and the local police department ultimately escorted the spouse from the premises. Meanwhile, their partner had to complete the birth experience alone, which has been connected to adverse maternal and infant outcomes.1”
Line 31: Each state has their own laws, as well. Would benefit from explanation of one-party vs two party vs all party consent. Should someone recording be required to get the consent of every person in the video (or just those on camera or those in the audio)?
We have updated the text to include language on single, two-party, and all-party consent, as the basis for those laws. See page 2, line 7: “The legal framework to guide recording practices is based on wiretapping laws, which were not designed with health care settings in mind.2 In many states, single party consent is acceptable, where only one person has to agree to be recorded; for example, the person making the recording. In 11 states, recording practices are more stringent, with all party consent
required: all persons on the recording must consent. There are no national policies to guide health systems. While a few have begun to provide patients with recordings of visits routinely, and others explicitly ban visit recording, the majority of health systems have no policy to guide recording practice.3:
Lines 46-47: Is there information on how traumatic birth scenarios or outcomes are processed in the wake of a video?
Author Response: We were not able to find data on traumatic birth scenarios or outcomes and post-visit processing by birthing partners. The patients included in Citation 9 where they watched back their births were all non-traumatic births; future work may be able to better understand the experiences of those with traumatic birth scenarios or outcomes. However, most research on recording comes from oncology where patients receive traumatic diagnoses. In these case, the majority of patients report high
satisfaction with a recording and only in rare instances did they report that the recording created more anxiety. We have included language to this effect. See page 2 line 23: “We have found that close to 30%
of clinicians in the U.S. have reported being recorded, while 93% of oncologists from a recent survey at 5 large cancer centers experienced patients seeking to record a visit.8 Overwhelmingly, studies have found that patients find recordings to be useful they use them to revisit conversations to better absorb or remember important information from a clinical interaction.3 Even when listening back to difficult news, such as a cancer diagnosis, most patients value access to a visit recording and only rarely do they report that listening to recordings is distressing.9”
Lines 49-57: Is there information on to back up these claims? How does one handle when there is video evidence of a bad outcome that otherwise could or could not have been prevented? What about in litigious states?
Author Response: We have updated citations for this section to reflect the reporting of the lawsuits and included language about uncovering substandard care. We have also included language acknowledging variation among states, and included an example where recordings have been identified as protective in Arizona. See page 3 line 2: We have found that close to 30% of clinicians in the U.S. have reported being recorded, while 93% of oncologists from a recent survey at 5 large cancer centers experienced patients seeking to record a visit.8 Overwhelmingly, studies have found that patients find recordings to be useful they use them to revisit conversations to better absorb or remember important information from a clinical interaction.3 Even when listening back to difficult news, such as a cancer diagnosis, most patients value access to a visit recording and only rarely do they report that listening to recordings is
distressing.9”
Lines 87-92: I feel like this section needs to be expanded upon. If this is already occurring, at what rate, and does this have any effect on privacy concerns or the provider-patient relationship?
Author Response: As this section refers to a previous section, we elected to update the prior section.
See page 2, line 22: “In the absence of clear policy, or even where policy prohibits recording, we know that recording is happening, both openly and surreptitiously.7 We have found that close to 30% of clinicians in the U.S. have reported being recorded, while 93% of oncologists from a recent survey at 5 large cancer centers experienced patients seeking to record a visit.8 Overwhelmingly, studies have found that patients find recordings to be useful they use them to revisit conversations to better absorb or remember important information from a clinical interaction.3 Even when listening back to difficult news, such as a cancer diagnosis, most patients value access to a visit recording and only rarely do they report that listening to recordings is distressing.9 There is also emotional utility to recordings, particularly around birth. The recording of birth is regarded as “a rare chance to capture a landmark family event,”
one which is atypical in hospital settings where most visits are related to healthcare problems.10 Women who reviewed videos of their birth found it a gratifying and emotional experience, which enables them to better process the birth.11”
EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS:
1. If your article is accepted, the journal will publish a copy of this revision letter and your point-by-point responses as supplemental digital content to the published article online. You may opt out by writing separately to the Editorial Office at em@greenjournal.org, and only the revision letter will be posted.
Author Response: Confirmed
2. When you submit your revised manuscript, please make the following edits to ensure your submission contains the required information that was previously omitted for the initial double-blind peer review:
* Funding information (ie, grant numbers or industry support statements) should be disclosed on the title page and at the end of the abstract. For industry-sponsored studies, describe on the title page how the funder was or was not involved in the study.
* Include clinical trial registration numbers, PROSPERO registration numbers, or URLs at the end of the abstract (if applicable).
* Name the IRB or Ethics Committee institution in the Methods section (if applicable).
* Add any information about the specific location of the study (ie, city, state, or country), if necessary for context.
Author Response: Confirmed as applicable
3. Obstetrics & Gynecology's Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA) must be completed by all authors.
When you uploaded your manuscript, each coauthor received an email with the subject, "Please verify your authorship for a submission to Obstetrics & Gynecology." Please ask your coauthor(s) to complete this form, and confirm the disclosures listed in their CTA are included on the manuscript's title page. If they did not receive the email, they should check their spam/junk folder. Requests to resend the CTA may be sent to em@greenjournal.org.
Author Response: Confirmed
4. ACOG uses person-first language. Please review your submission to make sure to center the person before anything else. Examples include: "Patients with obesity" instead of "obese patients," "Women with disabilities" instead of "disabled women," "women with HIV" instead of "HIV-positive women,"
"women who are blind" instead of "blind women."
Author Response: Confirmed as applicable
5. Make sure your manuscript meets the following word limit. The word limit includes the manuscript body text only (for example, the Introduction through the Discussion in Original Research manuscripts), and excludes the title page, précis, abstract, tables, boxes, and figure legends, reference list, and supplemental digital content. Figures are not included in the word count.
Personal Perspectives and Junior Fellow Personal Perspectives: 2,000 words Clinical Conundrums: 1,500 words
Author Response: Our manuscript is 1225 words
6. For your title, please note the following style points and make edits as needed:
* Do not structure the title as a declarative statement or a question.
* Introductory phrases such as "A study of..." or "Comprehensive investigations into..." or "A discussion of..." should be avoided in titles.
* Abbreviations, jargon, trade names, formulas, and obsolete terminology should not be used.
* Titles should include "A Randomized Controlled Trial," "A Meta-Analysis," "A Systematic Review,"
or "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" as appropriate, in the subtitle. If your manuscript is not one of these four types, do not specify the type of manuscript in the title.
Author Response: Confirmed
7. Specific rules govern the use of acknowledgments in the journal. Please review the following guidelines and edit your title page as needed:
* All financial support of the study must be acknowledged.
* Any and all manuscript preparation assistance, including but not limited to topic development, data collection, analysis, writing, or editorial assistance, must be disclosed in the acknowledgments.
Such acknowledgments must identify the entities that provided and paid for this assistance, whether directly or indirectly.
* All persons who contributed to the work reported in the manuscript, but not sufficiently to be authors, must be acknowledged. Written permission must be obtained from all individuals named in the acknowledgments, as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions. Please note that your response in the journal's electronic author form verifies that permission has been obtained from all named persons.
* If all or part of the paper was presented at the Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or at any other organizational meeting, that presentation should be noted (include the exact dates and location of the meeting or indicate whether the meeting was held virtually).
* If your manuscript was uploaded to a preprint server prior to submitting your manuscript to Obstetrics & Gynecology, add the following statement to your title page: "Before submission to Obstetrics & Gynecology, this article was posted to a preprint server at: [URL]."
* Do not use only authors'4 initials in the acknowledgement or Financial Disclosure; spell out their names the way they appear in the byline.
Author Response: Confirmed as applicable
8. Provide a short title of no more than 45 characters, including spaces, for use as a running foot. Do not start the running title with an abbreviation.
Author Response: Short Title: Video Recording Policies during Childbirth
9. Provide a précis for use in the Table of Contents. The précis is a single sentence of no more than 25 words that states the conclusion(s) of the report (ie, the bottom line). The précis should be similar to the abstract's conclusion. Do not use commercial names, abbreviations, or acronyms in the précis. Please avoid phrases like "This paper presents" or "This case presents."
Author Response: N/A as we have no abstract or table of contents
10. Only standard abbreviations and acronyms are allowed. A selected list is available online
at https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fedmgr.ovid.com%2Fong%2Fac counts%2Fabbreviations.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Creed.w.bratches.gr%40dartmouth.edu%7C03e2d 0b3f3c64d29a1c208da47c220a8%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C63790119684 4284754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oUYuimpwD6U0ixidnBhFKS8yUK%2FL29s09UGCwd XhIRU%3D&reserved=0. Abbreviations and acronyms cannot be used in the title or précis.
Abbreviations and acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used in the abstract and again in the body of the manuscript.
Author Response: Confirmed
11. The journal does not use the virgule symbol (/) in sentences with words, except with ratios. Please rephrase your text to avoid using "and/or," or similar constructions throughout the text. You may retain this symbol if you are using it to express data or a measurement.
Author Response: Confirmed
12. Please review examples of our current reference style
at https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedmgr.ovid.com%2Fong%2Fa ccounts%2Fifa_suppl_refstyle.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Creed.w.bratches.gr%40dartmouth.edu%7C0 3e2d0b3f3c64d29a1c208da47c220a8%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C637901 196844284754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TD8A4kcfE%2FPILCvynrCaIEMLBbzdBSVho4S
%2FQDHZd54%3D&reserved=0. Include the digital object identifier (DOI) with any journal article references and an accessed date with website references.
Unpublished data, in-press items, personal communications, letters to the editor, theses, package inserts, submissions, meeting presentations, and abstracts may be included in the text but not in the formal reference list. Please cite them on the line in parentheses.
Author Response: Confirmed
If you cite ACOG documents in your manuscript, be sure the references you are citing are still current and available. Check the Clinical Guidance page
at https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acog.org%2Fclinical&a mp;data=05%7C01%7Creed.w.bratches.gr%40dartmouth.edu%7C03e2d0b3f3c64d29a1c208da47c220a 8%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C637901196844284754%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C
%7C%7C&sdata=1zfU2GS1w6LC1gQtZd1MsMUs%2F2pFLsoxpRw%2BQnEy04A%3D&reserved
=0 (click on "Clinical Guidance" at the top). If the reference is still available on the site and isn't listed as
"Withdrawn," it's still a current document. In most cases, if an ACOG document has been withdrawn, it should not be referenced in your manuscript.
Please make sure your references are numbered in order of appearance in the text.
Author Response: Confirmed
13. Authors whose manuscripts have been accepted for publication have the option to pay an article processing charge and publish open access. With this choice, articles are made freely available online immediately upon publication. An information sheet is available
at https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinks.lww.com%2FLWW- ES%2FA48&data=05%7C01%7Creed.w.bratches.gr%40dartmouth.edu%7C03e2d0b3f3c64d29a1c20 8da47c220a8%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C637901196844284754%7CUnkn own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DNmjeit%2F2BnRYXztF%2B3c5j0oRz3MRSh6%2BiuX3x9atA8%3D&am p;reserved=0. The cost for publishing an article as open access can be found
at https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwkauthorservices.editage.co m%2Fopen-
access%2Fhybrid.html&data=05%7C01%7Creed.w.bratches.gr%40dartmouth.edu%7C03e2d0b3f3c 64d29a1c208da47c220a8%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C6379011968442847 54%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkNSrGufAZyeiKAbHf0ErQ3pUEJNjx75SDSSjRSqOuo%3 D&reserved=0.
If your article is accepted, you will receive an email from the Editorial Office asking you to choose a publication route (traditional or open access). Please keep an eye out for that future email and be sure to respond to it promptly.
Confirmed
***
If you choose to revise your manuscript, please submit your revision through Editorial Manager
at https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fong.editorialmanager.com%2F
&data=05%7C01%7Creed.w.bratches.gr%40dartmouth.edu%7C03e2d0b3f3c64d29a1c208da47c22 0a8%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C637901196844284754%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%
7C%7C%7C&sdata=Mj7IxvjfDNMLuLP3KGsLiYWK4PDLvMkGKct%2FFKDEZqk%3D&reserved=0.
Your manuscript should be uploaded as a Microsoft Word document. Your revision's cover letter should include a point-by-point response to each of the received comments in this letter. Do not omit your responses to the EDITOR COMMENTS (if applicable), the REVIEWER COMMENTS, the STATISTICAL EDITOR COMMENTS (if applicable), or the EDITORIAL OFFICE COMMENTS.
If you submit a revision, we will assume that it has been developed in consultation with your coauthors and that each author has given approval to the final form of the revision.
Again, your manuscript will be maintained in active status for 14 days from the date of this letter. If we have not heard from you by Jun 20, 2022, we will assume you wish to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason D. Wright, MD Editor-in-Chief
2020 IMPACT FACTOR: 7.661
2020 IMPACT FACTOR RANKING: 3rd out of 83 ob/gyn journals
