Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 22, 2020 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr Tomassini, Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript entitled "Visual sampling is locked to the internal dynamics of cortico-motor control" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. Your revision and response to reviewers have 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 Jul 01 2020 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. Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible. Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission. Kind regards, Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D., Senior Editor PLOS Biology |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr Tomassini, Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Visual sampling is locked to the internal dynamics of cortico-motor control" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from the original reviewers 2-4 and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor. The Academic Editor also assessed the way you responded to the concerns originally raised by reviewer 1, who couldn't re-review. We're delighted to let you know that we're now editorially satisfied with your manuscript. However, based on the feedback provided by reviewer 3, we would like you to change the title to "Visual detection..." rather than "Visual sampling..." In addition, before we can formally accept your paper 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. Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email. *Copyediting* 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. NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information *Published Peer Review History* 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. Please see here for more details: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/ *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. *Protocols deposition* To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods *Submitting Your Revision* 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, Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D., Senior Editor, PLOS Biology ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DATA POLICY: You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797 Unfortunately, we were not able to access your Dyad link: 10.5061/dryad.vq83bk3ps Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask for all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5 These data can be made available in one of the following forms: 1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore). 2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication. Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels: Figures 1CD, 3AB, 4D, 5A, 6, 7, and S2B. NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values). Please also ensure that each figure legend in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend. Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer remarks: Reviewer #2: While as the authors acknowledge, the results are correlational, the new analyses, mainly in response to reviewer 1's questions do provide additional and, in my opinion, convincing evidence for an alpha wavelength visuo-motor loop. I have no more questions or concerns. Reviewer #3: While the added analyses (granger and stratification) are very helpful and convincing, I have a suggestion concerning the new title, which I find misleading. It suggests a task with proven (or at least calling for) temporally modulated visual processing (sampling), however, the task used is best solved with continuous visual processing. While of course, visual processing is not continuous, using visual sampling as such in the title feels suboptimal. I would suggest a more neutral phrasing like „Visual processing is locked to the …" Reviewer #4: In the revised manuscript, the authors have addressed my concerns. As a result, the manuscript has significantly improved. I appreciated the authors' efforts. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Dear Dr Tomassini, On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Alexander Gail, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article 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, Vita Usova Publication Assistant, PLOS Biology on behalf of Gabriel Gasque, 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 .