http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8379-7267
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2019 |
|---|
|
Dear Mathieu, Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript entitled "Image-based analysis of living mammalian cells using label free 3D refractive index maps reveals new organelle dynamics and dry mass flux" for consideration as a Methods and Resources by PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by the original academic editor and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review. However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire. Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Oct 02 2019 11:59PM. Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit. Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review. Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission. Kind regards, Ines -- Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD Senior Editor PLOS Biology Carlyle House, Carlyle Road Cambridge, CB4 3DN +44 1223–442810 |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr Frechin, Thank you for submitting your revised Methods and Resources entitled "Image-based analysis of living mammalian cells using label free 3D refractive index maps reveals new organelle dynamics and dry mass flux" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from the two original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor. Based on the reviews (attached below), we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, assuming that you will modify the manuscript to address the remaining concerns raised by the reviewers. Please address the remaining issues raised by Reviewer 2 by adding further details and clarifications to the text. In addition, the Academic Editor has sent us a marked-up vesion of the PDF highlighting a few gramatical errors in the text and a typo in Fig. 1 that should be amended (see file attached to this email or available in the editorial system). We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. In addition to the remaining revisions and before we will be able to formally accept your manuscript and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication. Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript. Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Early Version Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Ines -- Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD Senior Editor PLOS Biology Carlyle House, Carlyle Road Cambridge, CB4 3DN +44 1223–442810 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reviewers’ comments Rev. 1: The revised manuscript is substantially improved. The authors have responded effectively to the points raised in the initial round of review, most notably by explaining the biological significance of the observed organelle rotation in mitotic cells. This is an excellent demonstration of the capabilities of the technique. The technique itself is described clearly and the discussion appropriately places the focus on the technique rather than the commercial implementation. The present version of the manuscript is suitable for publication in PLOS Biology. Rev. 2: This is a revised manuscript presenting a label-free 3D refractive index imaging method based on holo-tomographic microscopy (HTM). I had to admit that the quality of the images and videos are very impressive. The HTM images have really good resolution and contrast, which compare favorably to bright-field, DIC and phase contrast microscopes. The authors tried to respond to the editor and reviewers’ comments and made a major revision to the manuscript. However, there are still several concerns with the current manuscript. 1. A similar manuscript from the authors was posted on BioRxiv in 2018. However, the authors listed are not exactly the same as the current submitted manuscript. Please explain. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/04/407239.full.pdf 2. Even with the additional details in the introduction, it is still not clear how the HTM system used in the current study was configured and how image reconstruction was performed. Figure 1a is not clear nor sufficient. The cited references are not up to date (e.g. the most recent reference in Ref. 1-10 are from 2013; many others were from 10-20 years ago). 3. If absolute values of the RI images were obtained, it would be important to show them in addition to the normalized images. A color bar can be added to the images to show the range of the absolute RI. It would be interesting to see the RI differences among various organelles, as well as variations between different cells. 4. No 3D views of the RI images were shown, although Figure 1b says so. 5. What is the depth range, axial resolution and temporal resolution of the HTM system? How small of a RI change can it detect? 6. The manuscript can be further improved with its readability. For example, the introduction can explain the difference and compare the pros and cons of HTM and other quantitative phase imaging methods. Technical details of the system can go into the method section instead of introduction. Connections between different experiments can be better explained. Any biological insights from these experiments would be appreciated. 7. There are also several mistakes/errors with uploaded figures and captions: Figures and captions for Extended Data Figure 2 and 3 are flipped; Caption of Extended Data Figure 7 refer to the Extended Data Figure 6. Caption for 8 points to Figure in 7; and caption for 6 points to Figure in 8; Extended Data Figure 5, what is shown in c?
|
| Revision 2 |
|
Dear Dr Frechin, On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Sandra L Schmid, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Methods and Resources in PLOS Biology. The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication. Early Version The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. PRESS We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf. We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/. Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process. Kind regards, Sofia Vickers Senior Publications Assistant PLOS Biology On behalf of, Ines Alvarez-Garcia, Senior Editor PLOS Biology |
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 .