Introducing platform surface interior angle (PSIA) and its role in flake formation, size and shape

Shannon P. McPherron; Aylar Abdolahzadeh; Will Archer; Annie Chan; Igor Djakovic; Tamara Dogandžić; George M. Leader; Li Li; Sam Lin; Matthew Magnani; Jonathan Reeves; Zeljko Rezek; Marcel Weiss

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241714

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 5, 2020
30 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor PONE-D-20-16801 Introducing Platform Surface Interior Angle (PSIA) and Its Role in Flake Formation, Size and Shape PLOS ONE Dear Dr. McPherron, 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. I received comments from two reviewers. Their comments are attached. Please address these comments carefully and significantly improve both English and presentations of this manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 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, Jianguo Wang, PhD 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location. If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement: 'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.' If no permits were required, please include the following statement: 'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.' For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archaeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We thank the Max Planck Society for funding portions of this work. LL and JR received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement n° 714658; STONECULT project). TD received funding from the European Union's Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) under the Marie Sk lodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 751125SPM, MW, WA, ZR and TD thank Jean-Jacques Hublin for his continued support of our research agenda." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: No ****** 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: The paper by McPherron et al introduces PSIA- Platform Surface Interior Angle as a new quantifiable variable to understand fracture mechanics in flake formation, shape, and size variability through statistical modelling. This study adds a constant to the EPA-DP model and the study of fracture mechanics to explain flake variability. Though there is a need for further testing and data, which is clearly stated by the authors, the paper sets the principles and methodology to achieve it and expand it towards a comprehension of flake formation. I believe it will be a reference for a growing research field and particularly important towards the development of a general model for understanding technological variability. Only minor revisions are recommended: Page 5 (103-105): the word “majority” can be subjective. Perhaps following the argument with supporting references would enrich the paragraph. Page 8 (179-184): Though the paper does not centre on raw material variability, the description criteria for the three assemblages used in the study should be homogenous. In materials and methods, the description of Dibble glass data and Campagne data refer to the raw material used. For the MPI data, this information is missing. Page 8 (200): I assume the filtered Dibble glass data is represented by 49 samples referred on page 11 - 288. To make it easier for the reader to follow the results, the number of samples should be included earlier in the description of materials and methods. Figure 10: it is recommended to add labels in figure 10. Though the same labels are present in figure 9, it makes it easier for the reader to have the corresponding information in each graph or figure. Reviewer #2: In the present manuscript, the linkage between fracture mechanics and the results obtained from controlled experiments is explored. By documenting the influence of Hertzian cone formation, the authors found that the platform width is a function of the Hertzian cone constant angle and the geometry of the platform edge. In the referee’s opinion, the formulation and method of this paper should be right, but the following revision should be carefully made: Please find the review comments in the attached file ****** 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 [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241714.r001
Revision 1
10 Sep 2020 Author Response [see uploaded response document] Response Document Reviewer #1: The paper by McPherron et al introduces PSIA- Platform Surface Interior Angle as a new quantifiable variable to understand fracture mechanics in flake formation, shape, and size variability through statistical modelling. This study adds a constant to the EPA-DP model and the study of fracture mechanics to explain flake variability. Though there is a need for further testing and data, which is clearly stated by the authors, the paper sets the principles and methodology to achieve it and expand it towards a comprehension of flake formation. I believe it will be a reference for a growing research field and particularly important towards the development of a general model for understanding technological variability. Only minor revisions are recommended: Page 5 (103-105): the word “majority” can be subjective. Perhaps following the argument with supporting references would enrich the paragraph. Whew. Not sure how to address this one. We agree that it is a subjective statement without citation, but we also think that it would be difficult to develop this point without at least an additional paragraph where we would have to call out individual studies in a somewhat negative way. This, we think, would distract from our paper. What we have done is reworded a bit and added a citation to Speth 1972 where he makes the same point decades ago. Page 8 (179-184): Though the paper does not centre on raw material variability, the description criteria for the three assemblages used in the study should be homogenous. In materials and methods, the description of Dibble glass data and Campagne data refer to the raw material used. For the MPI data, this information is missing. We added that the flakes are made from flint. Page 8 (200): I assume the filtered Dibble glass data is represented by 49 samples referred on page 11 - 288. To make it easier for the reader to follow the results, the number of samples should be included earlier in the description of materials and methods. There is a confusion here and we modified the text to make this more clear. First, we restate the Dibble glass sample size (142) when discussing the filtering. Second, no, the 49 figure is a subsample of the 142. We now call this a subsample and we restate the sample sizes. Figure 10: it is recommended to add labels in figure 10. Though the same labels are present in figure 9, it makes it easier for the reader to have the corresponding information in each graph or figure. Done. Reviewer #2 Comments on PONE-D-20-16801 In the present manuscript, the linkage between fracture mechanics and the results obtained from controlled experiments is explored. By documenting the influence of Hertzian cone formation, the authors found that the platform width is a function of the Hertzian cone constant angle and the geometry of the platform edge. In the referee’s opinion, the formulation and method of this paper should be right, but the following revision should be carefully made: 1. The drawings in the paper are bad, please improve them. For example, the present setup presented in Fig.1 is unclear. We redrew the figure to make it more clear and slightly better in appearance. We note, however, that this figure is in keeping with similar figures in the literature. 2. There is something wrong with the citation in the paper, for example, no issue number for Reference 17. This particular publication does not have an issue number. However, pages were missing, and we corrected that. We also went through all other citations and checked them for accuracy and missing information. Several were corrected. We also updated our citation to R. 3. There are plenty of improper expressions in the manuscript, for example, “Increasing either increases flake size, but the relationship between the two is geometric such that at higher values of EPA changes in PD have a greater effect on flake size.” We modified this sentence to increase clarity. “The EPA-PD model of flake formation, however, is constrained in what it can explain.” We think this sentence is clear, especially in the context of what follows. “In particular, we start with the principle that the Hertzian cone, the angle of which is known from fracture mechanics to be a constant for a given raw material, has a measurable impact on flake formation.” We struggle to find a way to say this more clearly. “While the size of the Hertzian cone is dependent on variables such as the indenter's radius, impact velocity and fracture toughness of the brittle solid, the cone angle remains unchanged” We modified this sentence slightly. “This dataset has the advantage that a number of potentially important variables are either controlled for or were measured.” We struggle to find a way to say this more clearly. “In the results presented below, this angle is referred to as the estimated PSIA to indicate that is is not directly measured from the flakes themselves.” Fixed. Please check the manuscript carefully and improve them. We have done this. 4. More explanation about the EPA-PD model and PSIA will be more useful for readers of the present paper. We are not sure what else we can say about the EPA-PD model, and we have provided extensive citations to the original papers defining this model plus papers applying it. And given that we are introducing PSIA for the first time and that the paper is entirely about PSIA, we are also not sure what more explanation we can give. We want to emphasize to the reviewer that we do not understand the mechanics behind these models as well as we would like. This paper tries to tie PSIA to Hertzian cone formation, but exactly how that happens is unclear (not just to us). These will be things that additional research can continue to clarify. 5. The reviewer suggests the authors to add detailed information about the solution procedure in the present paper. We are not sure what a solution procedure is, and so we Googled it. If we understand correctly from the examples we found, this is well beyond our expertise to do. We also doubt we have a sufficient understanding of the mechanisms involved at this point to do such a thing. While not exactly the same thing, we do note that all of our code and all of our data are included with this paper. 6. Whether the present model is related to contact behavior of an indenter on a substrate? If so, some related references should be helpful, for example, J. Appl. Mech.-Trans. ASME. 2015. 82(4): 041008. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2013. 50(7): 1108-1119. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2019. 151: 410-423. We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to these papers. As we further investigate different strike conditions, we think this literature could be valuable. It certainly points to issues we will need to consider. For the present paper, however, we think that this discussion on our part would be too speculative at this time and draw away from our main point. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response Document.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241714.r002
20 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor Introducing Platform Surface Interior Angle (PSIA) and Its Role in Flake Formation, Size and Shape PONE-D-20-16801R1 Dear Dr. McPherron, 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, Jianguo Wang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: The authors made the proposed corrections and responded adequately to all comments and queries raised in the first round of revisions. Considering changes made throughout the text I have no new comments to ad regarding the content of the article. I propose the manuscript to be accepted for publication. Reviewer #2: (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 #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241714.r003
Formally Accepted
9 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor PONE-D-20-16801R1 Introducing Platform Surface Interior Angle (PSIA) and Its Role in Flake Formation, Size and Shape Dear Dr. McPherron: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Jianguo Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241714.r004

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 .