Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 1, 2019
Decision Letter - Natalia L. Komarova, Editor, Arne Traulsen, Editor

Dear Dr Allen,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript, 'Transient amplifiers of selection and reducers of fixation for death-Birth updating on graphs', to PLOS Computational Biology. As with all papers submitted to the journal, yours was fully evaluated by the PLOS Computational Biology editorial team, and in this case, by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some aspects of the manuscript that should be improved.

We would therefore like to ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations before we can consider your manuscript for acceptance. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and we encourage you to respond to particular issues 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.raised.

In addition, when you are ready to resubmit, please be prepared to provide the following:

(1) A detailed list of your responses to the review comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. We require a file of this nature before your manuscript is passed back to the editors.

(2) A copy of your manuscript with the changes highlighted (encouraged). We encourage authors, if possible to show clearly where changes have been made to their manuscript e.g. by highlighting text.

(3) A striking still image to accompany your article (optional). If the image is judged to be suitable by the editors, it may be featured on our website and might be chosen as the issue image for that month. These square, high-quality images should be accompanied by a short caption. Please note as well that there should be no copyright restrictions on the use of the image, so that it can be published under the Open-Access license and be subject only to appropriate attribution.

Before you resubmit your manuscript, please consult our Submission Checklist to ensure your manuscript is formatted correctly for PLOS Computational Biology: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/static/checklist.action. Some key points to remember are:

- Figures uploaded separately as TIFF or EPS files (if you wish, your figures may remain in your main manuscript file in addition).

- Supporting Information uploaded as separate files, titled 'Dataset', 'Figure', 'Table', 'Text', 'Protocol', 'Audio', or 'Video'.

- Funding information in the 'Financial Disclosure' box in the online system.

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.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we ask that you let us know the expected resubmission date by email at ploscompbiol@plos.org.

If you have any questions or concerns while you make these revisions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Arne Traulsen

Associate Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Natalia Komarova

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

A link appears below if there are any accompanying review attachments. If you believe any reviews to be missing, please contact ploscompbiol@plos.org immediately:

[LINK]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

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

Reviewer #1: A very well written paper that can be accepted as is.

Only one minor issue: There is a missing reference to an equation in the supplemental material (on the line between eqs (12) and (13))

Reviewer #2: This submission is nice, with interesting results that are relatively easy to read, and good tie-ins to existing literature.

My only substantial problem with the submission is in the sections evaluating the methodology for particular graphs, specifically a 'fan.' I see two problems.

First, the analysis investigates a limit of the fixation probability as epsilon approaches 0. But in that limit, the graphs are no longer well-behaved in the sense that their fixation time goes to infinity. In other words, the graph cannot achieve fixation in finite time in the limit that the blades are not connected to the hub. So this limit does not make sense to me, because the graph reduces to independent Moran processes, one on each blade.

Second, there is an error in computing that limit for the fan from Eq. 13. Lim eps -> 0 of Neff (Eq. 13) is mn. Either the equation is misreported or there is a deeper issue to be addressed.

I would also be interested to see a comparison of the theoretical results with simulations that approximate fixation over a large number of trials. For example, in Fig 2 panels C and D, I suggest the authors present simulation results of fixation probability as dots for various values of r and show that Eq 14 passes through them when r is approximately 1. Same thing for Figs 3 and 4. Showing agreement between theory and simulations justifies your methodology and assures the reader that your math is right.

There are a number of additional minor revisions that I include in the attached, including suggested references, interpretations, a request for an additional clarifying figure, etc.

There are unlabelled equations and references in the SI as well.

Reviewer #3: The review is in the attachment.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Travis Monk

Reviewer #3: Yes: Marius Moeller

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PCOMPBIOL-D-19-00886_reviewer.pdf
Attachment
Submitted filename: Transient_Comments.pdf
Revision 1

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: dB graphs response to reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Natalia L. Komarova, Editor, Arne Traulsen, Editor

Dear Dr Allen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Transient amplifiers of selection and reducers of fixation for death-Birth updating on graphs' 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. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process.

One of the goals of PLOS is to make science accessible to educators and the public. PLOS staff issue occasional press releases and make early versions of PLOS Computational Biology articles available to science writers and journalists. PLOS staff also collaborate with Communication and Public Information Offices and would be happy to work with the relevant people at your institution or funding agency. If your institution or funding agency is interested in promoting your findings, please ask them to coordinate their releases with PLOS (contact ploscompbiol@plos.org).

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your paper in PLOS Computational Biology.

Sincerely,

Arne Traulsen

Associate Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Natalia Komarova

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

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

Reviewer #3: I thank the authors for taking my comments seriously and making the needed changes in the supplementary. I especially liked the idea of using the perturbation of an isothermal graph to find an unweighted, undirected amplifier.

Looking through the supplement, I couldn't find any further mistakes. As such, I'm very happy with the manuscript as-is.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #3: None

**********

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: Yes: Marius Moeller

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Natalia L. Komarova, Editor, Arne Traulsen, Editor

PCOMPBIOL-D-19-00886R1

Transient amplifiers of selection and reducers of fixation for death-Birth updating on graphs

Dear Dr Allen,

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,

Matt Lyles

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 .