Dear Dr Kolbl,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "NRV: An open framework for in silico evaluation of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation strategies" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology.

As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS Computational Biology. We appreciate the fully open-source and self-contained software framework for the computational evaluation of peripheral nerve stimulation, and acknowledge that it can potentially be highly useful for the community. Nevertheless, in the current state, several questions remain open. In particular, I would like to stress that more details on the optimization and the implementation of the parallelization with the MPI are needed (see comments of reviewer 1). In addition, the Discussion indicates that there are examples with detailed documentation online, which were (at the time of the review) not available on https://nrv.readthedocs.io/. Also on GitHub, only a very short example without documentation was present. Given that the usability of the framework is an important aspect of this work, we expect the authors to finish the online documentation for further consideration of the manuscript.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Bettina Christine Schwab, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniele Marinazzo

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

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

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS Computational Biology. We appreciate the fully open-source and self-contained software framework for the computational evaluation of peripheral nerve stimulation, and acknowledge that it can potentially be highly useful for the community. Nevertheless, in the current state, several questions remain open. In particular, I would like to stress that more details on the optimization and the implementation of the parallelization with the MPI are needed (see comments of reviewer 1). In addition, the Discussion indicates that there are examples with detailed documentation online, which were (at the time of the review) not available on https://nrv.readthedocs.io/. Also on GitHub, only a very short example without documentation was present. Given that the usability of the framework is an important aspect of this work, we expect the authors to finish the online documentation for further consideration of the manuscript.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Uploaded as attachment

Reviewer #2: The MS is a well written clear description of an open source model of peripheral nerve stimulation. The MS also includes a brief review and comparison to existing similar models.

As noted by the authors, the major issue for the model is the lack of ability to digest histological data for more realistic simulations. Another short coming is that all nerve are modelled as straight tubes, again missing the complexity of realistic nerves.

Reviewer #3: The review is in attachment

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code 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 or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No: Can't find any of the contents listed in "Supporting information", online documentation pages are incomplete (some say "currently writing it!" ... e.g. https://nrv.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickstart/electrodes.html)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: James Fallon

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mattia Stefano

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: nrv.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Computational Biology Reviewer.pdf

Dear Dr Kolbl,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'NRV: An open framework for in silico evaluation of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation strategies' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

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

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.

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 now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

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

Best regards,

Bettina Christine Schwab, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniele Marinazzo

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

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

Reviewer 1 was not available anymore for the review process. The answers to their comments have been carefully checked by reviewer 3 and me, and all scientific concerns have been relieved. The manuscript still contains a large number of typos (e.g. line 108: optionnal, line 112: computationnal), which should ideally be corrected before the editorial process starts. I congratulate the authors on their nice work.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #3: The review is uploaded as an attachment

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code 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 or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Comp Biol - Comment to the authors .pdf