PCLM-D-24-00060

The Virtual Water Gallery: Art as a catalyst for transforming knowledge and behaviour in water and climate

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Arnal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 27 2024 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 climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Annesha Sil, Ph.D.

Staff Editor, PLOS

Journal Requirements:

1. 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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.

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 (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information."

3. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

5. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figs 1 & 5: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

6. Figure 2 includes an image of an identifiable person. Please provide written confirmation or release forms, signed by the subject(s) (or their parent/legally authorized guardian), giving permission to be photographed and to have their images published under our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Otherwise, we kindly request that you remove the photograph.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate 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

**********

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: The manuscript looks at analysis associated with a co-produced SciArt activity developed during the initial years of the Covid epidemic. The gallery concept and analysis are described, and conclusions drawn about the utility of art to contribute to the wider value of evidence and science in the growing climate crisis. I found it to be a useful article and it addresses some key themes in the climate-focused art-science continuum. While the language is a little florid in places and the statistical analysis is reasonably intense, the overall theme and trajectory of the manuscript is interesting and presents useful concepts. As the manuscript notes – art along with other creativity-based approaches are more and more being used to communicate the climate crisis – but there is not so much robust evaluation.

Comments:

Opening sentence of abstract – I get it that its looking to be a big opener, but water isn’t life. As the Author summary says – it is essential for life.

Line 14 – I’d add in ecosystems and or biodiversity before all these other aspects.

Line 25 – “within” ???

Line 38 – typo for holistic

Line 43 – When did Luke Howard do this? And really this is one example of probably hundreds if not thousands where science needed art through the last few centuries.

Line 71-76 – Can this closing paragraph of introduction list some specific questions to be addressed in the Discussion? The text is almost there but not quite. And the start of the Discussion invokes “areas”.

Line 79 – When did the excellence programme take place?

Line 83 – can a little more granularity be added? “Academics” is a broad term and so not clear what science is involved.

Line 89 – is the “co” needed here as you’ve just said collaborative teams had come together.

Line 122 – “local” – does this mean in person.

Line 176 – 14 questions doesn’t seem short to me. And what’s a pre-survey?

Line 206-214 – The statistical analysis is fine but what does statistical significance mean in the context of a small cohort likely biased by the fact they actually did the survey. Especially as they go on to note (line 431) “while not statistically significant…” and then talk about the results.

Line 223 – interesting demographics – from my experience in the setting I’m based in we’d have many more women-identifying than men-identifying.

Line 284 – “Funding was identified…”? This sentence could be worked on to clarify.

Line 292 – 295. Yes this is very good quote and in my experience essentially true. I would add though that I think the coming generation of scientists are much more open to broader concepts of knowledge and research.

Line 296 – The spread doesn’t seem that diverse to me – its all in the neutral to excellent.

Table 1 caption – can this have some more detail so it is more stand-alone. This recipe was derived how?

Table 3 doesn’t have “flying less”.

Line 560-565 – Good summary - This seems like it would be better in the introduction near the start.

I wouldn’t introduce acronyms if they are not used (3MT, REM).

Line 619 – yes the conference microcosm is worthy but is this somewhat isolating the SciArt group from the “serious scientists”? Is there a way to combine the two groups?

Fig 12 – isn’t this just a sentence or at most a table?

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: 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.

PCLM-D-24-00060R1

The Virtual Water Gallery: Art as a catalyst for transforming knowledge and behaviour in water and climate

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Arnal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’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 Nov 29 2024 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 climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhipin Ai

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

I noticed that during the first round of review, the manuscript was evaluated by only one reviewer, despite a minor revision being suggested by another editor. As a result, I reached out to additional potential reviewers to assess your paper. However, it took some time to find an appropriate reviewer. I have now received a report from one reviewer. I agree with the assessment that careful interpretation is crucial. Therefore, I invite the authors to revise the manuscript by incorporating the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.

[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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate 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

**********

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 following up on my comments and I think the revised version looks good and will make a nice contribution.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “The Virtual Water Gallery: Art as a catalyst for transforming knowledge and behaviour in water and climate” describes the perception of a science-art project in the water climate nexus with a base in Canada. I have not reviewed the first version, so I acknowledge that it is a bit unfortunate coming in now as reviewer at this stage. However, in my reading the paper has a number of strengths, but also important weaknesses, which make me hesitant to recommend publication in its current form. In general, I feel that the paper is stronger in the part that deals with perceptions of the active participants (although the lack of responses from the scientists is a problem), whereas the analysis of the audience responses is in my view in large parts rather inconclusive (mostly due to the small sample, strong self-selection, and potential dissonance reduction effects). The paper might still be interesting, but in its current form, I fear it overinterprets its findings.

Major issues:

Results presented in Fig 6: I feel the authors are overinterpreting the results. Please stick strictly to the one change that is (a) visible and (b) significant. All other changes are marginal (if at all) and should not be interpreted.

Like reviewer 1, I am concerned about the extensive interpretation of non-significant results. I agree that statistical significance is to a certain degree an arbitrary criterion, but why do significance tests, when they are ignored then? I suggest that the authors remove the interpretations of non-significant results.

In general, I wonder how much of the results are caused by the self-selection of the sample (especially for the visitors): These people went to the exhibits by choice and are interested in the topic. Having spent time there (and being willing to spend more time by answering the survey), they are very likely to have had a positive experience. And even if not, they will reduce cognitive dissonance for having used so much time by making the experience positive in their minds. So what do the results actually tell us?

Minor issues:

There are a number of minor issues though, that I would ask the authors to address (line numbers apply to the file version with track changes):

Abstract “…representing women, men and Indigenous voices…” sounds like these are three mutually exclusive categories. Please rephrase.

What is an author summary (which seems to be basically a shorter version of the abstract)? As far as I know, this is not required in the journal.

Line 34: space missing between “values” and “that”

Line 181-184: I do not understand this sentence, especially the last part of it.

Line 188 ff: It is not really true that methods for evaluating the effects of art have not been developed before, you even cite some work from projects that did such evaluations (e.g., the climart project).

Line 239-241: The information on the pseudonyms was already given. Please remove here.

In general, the word “participant” for artists and scientists confused me (as I intuitively mostly read it as survey participants). Might another word be found?

Fig 3: Does not convey much information, consider making it a table.

Fig 4: The figures are hard to interpret. What do the words represent? Do the colours indicate something? What do the words mean? Some of them are not self-explanatory. Overall, not ideal visual representations for me. Furthermore, Table 1 conveys some of the same information, does it not? May the figure just be removed?

Line 292: How is “time” a challenge? Is it “lack of time”?

Table 1: The second “don’t” may be a general advice to all type of events ;-)

Fig 5: All the information from the figure is also presented in the text. The figure can be removed.

Fig 6: The text and the figure disagree -> the figure shows higher knowledge levels for virtual participants, the text says higher levels for in person participants. Furthermore, I do not see a shift between 6a and 6b. The only visible shift is for the virtual exhibition and water related knowledge. All others look pretty much stable to me.

Fig 7/line 468: What does “attendance type” mean? Is it virtual/in person? If yes, what is coded as what? And what is “effectiveness”? Is it not trivial that people that think the exhibit was effective (btw. effective in doing what?) also report more change? Is the effectiveness not exactly this effect of knowledge increase?

Line 472 ff: Does “post feeling” in the figure mean “positive feelings” or “feelings post exhibit”? If the second, why is it interpreted as positive feelings. Previous research has pointed to that both positive and negative feelings motivate in art exhibitions (see Klöckner and Sommer, 2021 from your reference list).

Fig 9/Table 3: Separating the legend of the figure as a table is highly impractical for the reader who needs to jump back and forth. I suggest, merging this. Also: the stacked bars imply that the actions were coming on top of already existing actions. Is that really the case?

Fig 7, 10, and 12: For me, a table (as included in the supplementary material) would work much better than these figures. Remove the figures? The paper has far too many figures anyway (12 figures is a very high number for a single study paper).

Line 518: What does “the distributions are not statistically significant” mean? I assume it is the difference between the distributions.

Line 553 ff: This interpretation seems to be partly wrong: If the influence of flood/drought experience is negative, it should be “young respondents, without a university degree (which btw. may be related), and WITHOUT flood and drought experience… Also: presenting it like this implies that a person finding the exhibit particularly effective needs to have ALL those features, but this is not the case based on the analyses.

Line 571: What does “both of these approaches” refer to, before there were named three?

Line 573: The paper did NOT study changes in behaviour, but – at best – intentions to change.

Line 576 ff: I do not agree that up until now ArtSci collaboration has been using art simply as another vehicle of communication. On the contrary, in my experience, artists usually are very clear about that they are not mere communicators. Please moderate these statements.

Line 589 ff: From a psychological perspective, I would not speak about value shifts triggered by a simple visit to an exhibit. Values are rather stable. What the visit may have triggered though is the salience of already existing values (which also is valuable). This is also in line with that people visiting the exhibits likely already have the underlying value orientations.

Line 595 ff: I would doubt that art gallery visitors (especially of a climate change / water exhibition) are a highly diverse audience. It is interesting and worth noting though, that the online audience appeared to be more diverse. BTW: What about art in public spaces?

Line 647-670: Many big words, maybe moderate a bit, since the results of the study are in many parts inconclusive? Not to be misunderstood, I share the view that art especially in interaction with science can play an important role in addressing climate change and other societal changes, but we also need to be realistic of what can be achieved and who is reached.

Line 677: I would consider serious games in a different category than (visual) arts and music.

Line 690 ff: There are several EU funded projects where artists have been embedded in science projects just as is indicated here. Might be an idea to point to them? Or initiatives like Cape Farewell…

Line 737 ff: These things actually happen more and more.

Line 789 ff: Again, it seems the flood / drought experience effects appear to be interpreted in the wrong direction.

Finally, I consider the discussion and conclusion as quite lengthy. Overall, the paper is quite long, given the relatively small dataset that went into it. I think it could be edited to a substantially shorter version without loosing impact.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

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.

The Virtual Water Gallery: Art as a catalyst for transforming knowledge and behaviour in water and climate

PCLM-D-24-00060R2

Dear Dr. Arnal,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The Virtual Water Gallery: Art as a catalyst for transforming knowledge and behaviour in water and climate' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Zhipin Ai

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

I am pleased to inform you that your revised paper has now been accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate 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 #2: 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 #2: I appreciate the considerate and detailed responses to my review and I am happy with the changes made.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

**********