Reviewer response for version 1
The authors report on the usage of IDPs by postdoctoral scholars, which is both a timely and fundamental topic within the broader graduate and postdoctoral professional development community. 
This work extends beyond the authors’ recently published article on IDP usage among doctoral students 1 to showcase how the instrument is currently being used by postdocs. 
The aforementioned manuscript on doctoral IDP usage extensively discusses policy and other issues surrounding IDPs, while this manuscript is lean on discussion. 
It would therefore benefit from including prior literature on correlates of success associated with postdocs who have written plans—which would have the added benefit of placing this work into a broader context (for example, see: Davis 2009 2 ).
There are a number of points that should be addressed, and they are outlined as follows:
- The survey instrument asks questions on a 5-point Likert scale of strongly agree, agree, neutral (neither agree nor disagree), disagree, & strongly disagree. 
However, when analyzing the data, the authors report percentages either as ‘does not agree’ (also reported as ‘disagree’) or ‘agree’ - with ‘strongly disagree, disagree & neutral’ all grouped together as a ‘does not agree’ response. 
It seems that lumping “neutral (neither agree nor disagree)” into the ‘does not agree’ category would skew results (both in this manuscript and the manuscript on doctoral IDP usage) towards ‘does not agree.’ 
It is recommended that the authors reanalyze the data and report the ‘neutral’ responses as a third category in order to more accurately reflect intended answers/percentages.
- I agree with reviewer 1 that it is unclear how the authors calculated that 54% completed an IDP; like reviewer 1, I also calculated that 61% completed an IDP either with or without their PI. 
Similarly, I also agree with reviewer 1 that it is unclear where the 38.4% value came from (percent of respondents that completed an IDP who found the tool helpful). 
Furthermore, in figure 1, a value of 22.4% of all respondents (whether they complete an IDP or not) is listed as saying the IDP process is helpful to their career development. 
Since “22.4%” also includes those who never completed an IDP, reporting it in this manner seems to bias perceptions of the tool as unhelpful.
- Aside from the unclear derivation of percentages discussed in point #2, the questions in the survey instrument do not seem to allow confident discernment of who actually completed an IDP. 
For example, respondents who disagree with the question “I complete an IDP annually with my PI/advisor” could have actually completed an IDP with their PI at the beginning of their postdoc and/or possibly in year 3 of their postdoc—how much weight were respondents giving to the word ‘annually’? 
Another question reads: “I complete an IDP but I do not discuss it with my PI/advisor” - could respondents complete two different IDPs - one with and one without their PI (and thus agree to both the former and latter questions)?
- The authors assert that the usefulness of an IDP has decreased since 2014, specifically comparing their results to that in (Hobin et al. 2014 3 ). 
However, in the (Hobin et al. 2014) paper, an IDP’s overall value is reported either as ‘not helpful’ ‘neutral’ or ‘helpful’. 
It seems that the results in this manuscript could be compared more accurately with the (Hobin et al. 2014) data by showing the ‘neutral’ responses, rather than lumping them with ‘does not agree’ (see point 1 above). 
Additionally, it would be helpful to point out the limitations of comparing these two studies (ex: address key differences between the two survey instruments regarding how the IDP questions were asked (and how this might bias responses), address potential respondent audience differences, etc.).
- Like reviewer 1, I also feel that there are limited questions that address what one might consider IDP ‘effectiveness.’
’ The manuscript would thus be strengthened by discussing IDP indicators that have been previously reported in the literature (such as measures outlined by (Hobin et al. 2014) - ex: the value of an IDP in helping with self-assessment, helping identify career paths, helping identify skills to strengthen, etc.). 
Furthermore, (Davis 2009 2 ) reports an in-depth analysis of results from a Sigma Xi Postdoc Survey - identifying many positive correlates of success associated with postdocs who develop a written plan at the outset of their careers (ex: higher publication rate, grant submission rate, better supervisor relationships, etc.). 
Since the main point of this manuscript is to discuss the use and effectiveness of IDPs among postdocs, it would benefit from elaborating upon such postdoc-specific contextual literature - as well as other literature that documents the general benefits of goal-setting, which is a primary function of IDPs (Locke et al. 2002 4 ).
- (Minor) The authors indicate that “additional research is needed,” and it would thus be beneficial to clarify the research questions that should be addressed. 
For example, it seems that it would be useful to determine the effects of various parameters on IDP effectiveness such as: 1) when in training an IDP is completed; 2) inclusion/ exclusion of IDP components (such as self-assessment, career exploration, skill-building, goal-setting, etc.); 3) prior experience with/completion of an IDP as a PhD student; 4) completing an IDP of their own accord versus doing so because it is required; 5) receiving training on how to create/implement an IDP; 6) using a specific IDP instrument (ex: myIDP) versus an institutionally-developed IDP, etc..
- (Minor) 
As an additional point - since ‘IDP effectiveness’ is subjective as the authors point out, perhaps future studies should address better-defining these parameters so that common IDP evaluation methods can be adopted within the broader community. 
It would also be especially helpful to ascertain what IDP tools are being used, and how they are being implemented so that standard ‘correlates of effectiveness’ could be tied to specific IDP instruments (or components) and the manner in which they are employed.
Structure
Strength
Recap
Other
Todo
Structure
Recap
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Weakness
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Other