PONE-D-20-02888

Area per player in small-sided games to replicate the external load and estimated physiological match demands in elite soccer players

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. RIBOLI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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, address point-to-point all reviewers' issues, in particular Reviewer 3's ones. In its current format MS is not suitable for publication.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 09 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for inclkuding your ethics statement; "All participants gave their written consent after a full explanation of the purpose of the study and the experimental design. The local University Ethics Committee approved the study and was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1975). "

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, address point-to-point all reviewers' issues, in particular Reviewer 3's ones. In its current format MS is not suitable for publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data 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 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—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I congratulate the authors for the excellent and innovative work presented. This represents a huge effort and dedication compensated with outstanding results for better knowledge and application of SSG

Reviewer #2: The purpose of this study was to determine the area-per-player during small- or large-sided games with or without goalkeeper that replicates the relative (m�min-1) total distance, high-intensity running distance, sprint distance and metabolic power covered during official matches. The paper is very interesting, nevertheless, I would like to suggest some ideas in order to clarify the reading of the text. I hope with my comments the quality of the study can be improved.

Specific comments:

Introduction

The main idea that is discussed in the introduction is related to compare physical demands between small-sided games played with and without goalkeepers. In this line, I believe you need to include all references that study this comparison. Here some of them:

• Sassi, Reilly, & Impellizzeri (2004)

• Mallo, J., y Navarro, E. (2008). Physical load imposed on soccer players during small-sided training games. Journal of Sports and Physical Fitness, 48(2), 166-171.

• Casamichana, D., Castellano, J., González-Morán, A., García-Cueto, H., y García-López, J. (2011). Demanda fisiológica en juegos reducidos de fútbol con diferente orientación del espacio. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 23(7), 141-154.

• Köklü Y, Sert O, Alemdaroğlu U, & Arslan Y. (2015). Comparison of the physiological responses and time motion characteristics of young soccer players in small sided games: the effect of goalkeeper. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,

• Joaquín González-Rodenas1, Ferran Calabuig1, Rafael Aranda1. Effect of the Game Design, the Goal Type and the Number of Players on Intensity of Play in Small-Sided Soccer Games in Youth Elite Players. Journal of Human Kinetics volume 49/2015, 229-235

Methods

Procedure

Please clarify (maybe including interchangeability formulas) more information about interchangeability.

Line 166, than or then?

Line 169 please specify what the system used to register each variable

Lines 172-173, about calibration equations, were they calculated or copied from Buccheit’s study. Please clarify.

Statistical analysis

Could you include Bland and Altman plot statistics to determine the relationship between the GPS and the MCIS?

Results

I have tried to put the values appear in the table 1 in the figures A, B, C and D, but they do not match in the regression lines, am I doing something wrong? (e.g., the total value for all position of 115 m in SSG-P or 187 in SSG-G added to the figure A do not match with the reference line of the game and regression lines). Please explain.

Discussion

Please remove all the sections inside this section (e.g., Methodological consideration”, “main findings”…)

All information about methodological consideration must include like limitations of the study, in the last part of the discussion section. Other limitation that the authors must considerer include could be that no reference about number of players per team used in the tasks. It is not the same to play a 4:4 in a relative space of 100 m per player, that one 8:8 in the same relative space per player.

Line 330, freer?¿?¿?

Please add to the discussion section the connection with the papers suggested in the introduction.

The idea argued in this paragraph (from line 318 to 332) could be improved adding information that from my point of view is important. Because previous academic literature (Castellano et al., 2013) suggest the variables regarding to acceleration are more demanded in oriented games. So depending of the variable considered the task could be more or less demanded. The idea behind this more stimulation of accelerations in task with goalkeepers is that players need to overpass opponent or defensive lines in order to achieve the rival goal. Maybe could be interesting to include this information and discuss about it.

The last section, conclusion, I think could be interesting how the coaches could apply the result suggested in this study. Different position needs no same ApP, but how can coaches to design game tasks following the results. I think include this applicability is key.

Reviewer #3: General Comments

I think the basic premise of this study is sound, and the data potentially provides meaningful and interesting information for sport science researchers and practitioners. However, I feel there are a few important issues that the Authors need to consider in revising this manuscript.

Firstly, the whole premise of that study is to compare various SSG formats to match conditions, and yet the measurement of match conditions is with an entirely different measurement system. It is not sufficient to apply an existing “calibration equation”, as this was developed from entirely different systems. If the Authors want to compare data between their current systems, they need to, at the very least, present some pilot data that compares the output from their own GPS & MCIS products.

Secondly, the Authors seem to rely on 2 articles which question the validity of the metabolic power model whilst ignoring subsequent research which supports its application in team sports (and addresses some of the misconceptions and flaws of those early papers. Meanwhile, their own results seem to indicate that metabolic power is an appropriate tool for monitoring the demands of SSGs, but the Authors appear to overlook this finding.

Thirdly, the Authors seem to focus too much on whether a particular SSG replicates the match demands, and neglect to adequately address some of the other objectives and advantages of SSGs. At a very simplistic level, if the intent is merely to replicate the demands/characteristics of a match, then as a reader I find myself asking “why not just play matches then?”. The Authors need to provide more context and perspective regarding the role of SSGs in training.

Specific Comments

Introduction

Page 3 Line 52 – I suggest this sentence be re-worded to read “To assess these demands, contemporary player-tracking technologies such as global positioning system (GPS) or semi-automatic video-based multi-camera image systems (MCIS), are typically used.” Note that “system” should be singular.

Page 3 Line 61 – there are numerous issues with the term “MechW” mentioned here. Firstly, when the authors state that acceleration and deceleration is “often referred to as mechanical work”, the paper that they cite (Gaudino 2014) never uses the term nor the acronym. Secondly, and more importantly, by defining that MechW applies to changes in speed, this implies that no mechanical work is done when running at a constant speed. This is clearly not the case. The Authors need to abandon the term MechW throughout the manuscript and adopt more appropriate terminology. Just as importantly, this needs to filter through to the way the Authors interpret and discuss their findings.

Page 3 Line 66 – change “reviewed” to “found”.

Page 3 Line 69 – change “Over the last years” to “In recent times”.

Page 4 Line 75 – the statement “it does not take into account the individual running economy” is a throw-away line that lacks evidential support. Neither of the papers cited here actually assessed individual economy, and in any case it is the COST rather than ECONOMY that is used to estimate metabolic power. Meanwhile, there is substantial experimental evidence in the literature that the cost of locomotion varies little between individuals.

Page 4 Line 77 – the statement here indicates a misunderstanding of the metabolic power model, as it implies that it is only relevant for assessing accelerations and decelerations but not high-speed running. This represents one of many misconceptions from previous literature that the Authors are perpetuating.

Material and Methods

Page 5 Line 98 – remove “the” prior to “data collection”.

Page 5 Line 99 – remove “the” prior to “data collection”.

Page 5 Line 100 – change “…full in-group re-integration.” to “…their return to full training.”

Page 5 Line 106 – change “…during the in-season period (August 2014 – May 2016)” to “during the competition period across two seasons (August 2014 – May 2016)”.

Page 5 Line 108 – change “All sessions were performed on two grass pitches preserved by qualified operators and performed at the same time to limit the effects of circadian variations” to “All sessions were performed on two grass pitches preserved by qualified operators and were conducted at the same time of day to limit the effects of circadian variation”. Note here that “variation” is singular.

Page 5 Line 118 – change “S1 and S2 Tables” to “Tables S1 and S2”.

Page 5 Line 119 – change “Both small- or large-sided games was abbreviated…” to “Both small- and large-sided games were abbreviated…”

Page 6 Line 124 – change “…warm-up under the club’s staff guidance” to “warm-up under the guidance of club staff”.

Page 7 Line 153 – change “each data collection” to “each session”.

Page 7 Line 153 – change “allow the acquisition” to “allow for acquisition”.

Page 7 Line 154 – change “every player wore the same device for each training session” to “each player wore the same unit for every training session”. Note that “unit” should be used instead of “device”.

Page 8 Line 173 – the “calibration equations” proposed by Buchheit et al. are specific to the devices and tracking systems assessed in that study. There is no reason to assume that they would equally apply to the GPS and MCIS brands used in the present study, and therefore makes the use of this equation dubious.

Discussion

General Comments – in addition to determining what ApP values replicate match demands for each position, I think it is important that the Authors acknowledge (and discuss) that SSGs also have a role in overloading different aspects of physical demands as well as emphasising various tactical or technical parameters. If the only objective of SSGs was to replicate match demands, then surely teams would just play matches. I think the Authors need to include this point in their interpretation and discussion of the results.

Page 13 Line 273 – this first sentence is a bit clumsy with respect to wording. I suggest something like “In order to properly interpret the results observed in the present study, some preliminary considerations need to be taken into account”.

Page 13 Line 281 – change “amount” to “magnitude”.

Page 13 Line 284 – again here the Authors are perpetuating a misconception surrounding the metabolic power model, and ignoring more recent and relevant literature which demonstrates that the model is quite accurate in estimating the energetic cost of LOCOMOTION for variable-speed activity (e.g. Osgnach & di Prampero, 2018)

Page 13 Lines 286-288 – I think this is an example of where the Authors rely too much on one or two papers rather than providing a more extensive and balanced assessment of existing literature.

Page 13 Line 293 – change “here shown” to “shown here”.

Page 13 Line 296 – change “resulted in” to “required”.

Page 14 Line 304 – change “plan properly” to “properly plan”.

Page 14 Line 305 – change “performance goal” to “performance objectives”.

Page 14 Line 305 – change “larger” to “higher”.

Page 14 Lines 306-308 – I think the Authors need to acknowledge that this is an entirely obvious and expected statement. Perhaps they can insert the word “unsurprisingly” or something similar.

Page 14 Line 214 – change this sentence “Therefore, manipulating properly the ApP allows managing the training loads to be performed using SSGs…” to “Therefore, manipulating ApP allows for training loads in SSGs to be managed…”

Page 15 Line 336 – change “smaller” to “lower”.

Page 15 Line 340 – as well as suggesting that “these positions should be conditioned differently…”, I wonder whether the Authors should also discuss that perhaps the position-specific conditioning stimulus varies according to the player density. Furthermore, just because the movement characteristics don’t replicate the match, that does not mean that there is no conditioning stimulus – it just means that it is not exactly the same as the match.

Page 15 Line 340 – change “used” to “tend”.

Page 15 Line 341 – change “…while central-midfielders and forwards move across the pitch to gain possession of the ball…” to “…while central-midfielders and forwards tend to cover a greater area of the pitch in order to gain possession of the ball…”

Page 16 Line 352 – I think the Authors need to elaborate on point iv) more, rather than just mention it at the very end of the Discussion.

Conclusion

Page 16 Line 363 – I am not sure what the Authors mean by “more physiologically based exercises”. The entire premise of their study is to assess the physiological characteristics of SSGs, so it is contradictory to imply that these are not activities are not physiologically based. The Authors need to reconsider their terminology – and thinking – here.

Figure

Figure 1 – It is not clear exactly what information or concept the Authors are trying to present in Figure 1, particularly given the multiple variables all listed on the y-axis. Furthermore, there is no mention of Figure 1 in the text.

Figures 2 & 3 – I can see no reason why the Metabolic Power results are presented in a separate figure, rather than being an additional panel within Figure 2. For clarity and also ease of comparison, it would make sense that Figure 2 comprises 5 panels (A-E) representing each of the 5 variables assessed.

**********

6. 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ted Polglaze

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-20-02888R1

Area per player in small-sided games to replicate the external load and estimated physiological match demands in elite soccer players

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. RIBOLI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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, one further effort to address remaining Reviewer 3's issues.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 12 2020 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, one further effort to address remaining Reviewer 3's issues.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data 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 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—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: General Comments

I commend the Authors for their thorough and well-considered revision. I have only minor corrections, but believe that this manuscript is suitable for publication.

Specific Comments

Introduction

Page 3 Line 70 – change “controversial” to “conflicting”.

Page 4 Line 75 – overall, I commend the Authors for providing a more balanced (and evidence-based) account of Metabolic Power. However, in saying that the model is “…used to estimate the energy cost of high-intensity running activities…”, this implies that it is only useful for this purpose, whereas in fact it applies across all intensities. So, please change “the energy cost of high-intensity running activities in team sports” to “the energy cost of locomotion in team sports”.

Reviewer #4: All my comments have been satisfactorily adressed. In my opinio, the manuscript can be opublished in its current form.

**********

7. 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: Ted Polglaze

Reviewer #4: 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.]

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.

Area per player in small-sided games to replicate the external load and estimated physiological match demands in elite soccer players

PONE-D-20-02888R2

Dear Dr. RIBOLI,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations for the good job.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data 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 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—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. 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: Ted Polglaze