Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 3, 2024 |
|---|
|
PCOMPBIOL-D-24-01493Optical Neuroimage Studio (OptiNiSt): intuitive, scalable, extendable framework for optical neuroimage data analysisPLOS Computational BiologyDear Dr. Yamane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology'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 within 30 days Jan 26 2025 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 ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ 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'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below. * 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'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. 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, Kim T. Blackwell, V.M.D., Ph.D.Academic EditorPLOS Computational Biology Hugues Berry Section EditorPLOS Computational Biology Feilim Mac Gabhann Editor-in-Chief PLOS Computational Biology Jason Papin Editor-in-Chief PLOS Computational Biology Journal Requirements: 1) Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150-200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission 2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures 3) We have noticed that you have a list of Supporting Information legends in your manuscript. However, there are no corresponding files uploaded to the submission. Please upload them as separate files with the item type 'Supporting Information'. 4) We notice that your supplementary information is included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. 5) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 6) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s 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 PLOSu2019s 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 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. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. Potential Copyright Issues: - Figure 1. Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art: - https://commons.wikimedia.org - The following Figures contain a logo or branding: Figures: 1, 2, 3, and & 4. We are not permitted to publish this under our CC-BY 4.0 license, even with permission. We ask that you please remove or replace it. - The following Figures contain screenshots: Figures: 2, 3, and & 4. We are not permitted to publish these under our CC-BY 4.0 license, websites are usually intellectual property and are copyrighted.This includes peripheral graphics of the web browser such as icons and button. We ask that you please remove or replace it. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Authors: Please note the review is uploaded as an attachment. Reviewer #1: Attached in a separate file. Reviewer #2: OptiNiSt by Yamane et al is a new framework for creating calcium imaging data analysis pipelines. I think OptiNiSt is a rather useful addition to the repertoire of platforms/frameworks that exist out there to help neuroscientists (and others) carry out their calcium imaging analysis. I largely agree with the authors that OptiNiSt will help neuroscientists to standardize OptiNiSt 'packages' some of the standard tools (for cell detection, dimensionality reduction, etc) for calcium imaging analysis and appears to be expandable. The use of YAML is a good choice and maybe offering a slight advantage over other platforms/frameworks that use JSON files or other options. The fact that OptiNiSt can store analysis results in NWB format is also another potential benefit for its users. Minor comments: 1. Table 1: I think the paper would greatly benefit by having a figure where the various modules are listed in a nice visual way in catergories (e.g. cell detection, input, dimensionality reduction) instead of this long list in Table 1. Nobody is saying not to keep table 1 as a supplemental file but it is rather difficult to get a visual overview of the modules in the current way that they are presented. 2. Figure 3 I think this figure needs some rearrangement to make the details of Panel A more visible and I think subheadings in panel B and panel C are required to explain to the reader what they are looking at. An alternative would be to move Panel A to supplemental and increase the sizes of panels B and C. 3. Related to Figure 6 and Figure 7. It is not obvious to the reader how and to what extent a user can modify the parameters within individual modules (e.g. different motion algorithms) before running them and after (to optimize the motion correction/cell detection). A discussion of this would be important (I believe there is a single sentence on this on line 309). 4. Figure 8: It is not clear to me whether the plots are interactive. E.g. can you click on the GUI on Figure 8 panel C data and go to the actual projection to visualize the quality of the segmentation and motion correction for example? 5. I suggest that the authors also discuss at the end of the manuscript the limitations of the OptiNiSt. ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes: Kushal Kolar 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.]Figure resubmission: 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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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 |
| Revision 1 |
|
PCOMPBIOL-D-24-01493R1 Optical Neuroimage Studio (OptiNiSt): intuitive, scalable, extendable framework for optical neuroimage data analysis PLOS Computational Biology Dear Dr. Yamane, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the few remaining points raised by one of the reviewers. Also, we would appreciate if you would explain the author contributions if the software tool was indeed written by other developers. Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days May 04 2025 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 ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ 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'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below. * 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'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. 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, Kim T. Blackwell, V.M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS Computational Biology Hugues Berry Section Editor PLOS Computational Biology Journal Requirements: 1) Please upload figure 1 as a separate Figure file in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Authors: Please note that one of the reviews is uploaded as an attachment. Reviewer #1: Attached Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the authors for considering and implementing my comments and suggestions. I am happy with the status of the revised manuscript. ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes: Kushal Kolar 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.] Figure resubmission: 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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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
|
| Revision 2 |
|
Dear Yamane, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Optical Neuroimage Studio (OptiNiSt): intuitive, scalable, extendable framework for optical neuroimage data analysis' 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, Kim T. Blackwell, V.M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS Computational Biology Hugues Berry Section Editor PLOS Computational Biology *********************************************************** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PCOMPBIOL-D-24-01493R2 Optical Neuroimage Studio (OptiNiSt): intuitive, scalable, extendable framework for optical neuroimage data analysis Dear Dr Yamane, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. 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. Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work! With kind regards, Livia Horvath PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol
|
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 .