PONE-D-21-01208

#neoEBM: Building a community of practice through social media

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Keir,

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.

The reviewers have highlighted several issues concerning the current status of the paper. The paper needs MAJOR revisions in order to be evaluated for a future publication. I suggest you to follow more in detail each suggestion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 2021 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,

Barbara Guidi

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 Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection method complied with the terms and conditions for the website.

3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please confirm that all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"AK, RP, CW, SM, AS, OE and BK are current or previous social media editors and NB is immediate past lead social media editor for the International Society for Evidence-Based Neonatology (ebneo.org) and all tweet as part of these roles as @EBNEO. None are compensated for their role as social media editors. The authors have no financial relationships with the online analytical platform Symplur."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Reviewer comments :

Building a community of practice through social media

The study was interesting to go through. These are my main concerns. Below comments follow the order of the manuscript.

Title

I recommend adding to the title as it is not clear enough (too broad).

Introduction

The authors should add to the introduction a paragraph on the importance of the practice and gap in knowledge. Also, they need to add some literature in this regard. Other comments in introduction part is indicated as below:

Line 65: the authors should change the numbering of the reference to number 5 into 2, so it will follow sequential order.

Line 70: please delete the word meeting, as it’s a repetition.

Line 73: start a new Paragraph-Twitter is an….

Line 78: Please clarify the type of the observational study conducted.

Material and Methods

-Lines 83-85: the study design should be clarified.

-Sample size and sample size calculation.

-Where there any exclusion criteria?

Results

Figure 1: the writing in the figure is not clear.

Table 1: Aveling’score- please edit the space between s c.

Discussion

-This should be supported by other studies in different medical fields that show an effect of social media on Cop.

-Need recommendations for further studies and what should be done.

Thank you

Reviewer #2: This is an article discussing on the use of social media to develop a community of practice. I appreciate the initiatives on such social media-based research and saw merits of this paper and should be considered for publication upon major corrections.

My comments and suggestions: The authors shall improve the manuscripts (also to serve the need of readers of PLOS ONE of different backgrounds, unlike medical journal of specialised readers). In brief, the manuscript needs to be better organised and provide further elaboration to support the ideas put forward in the manuscript as in the following areas:

Introduction:

The numbering of the reference is not according to the sequence. Perhaps, also some background on why or the driver of online CoP, perhaps from other established fields.

Materials and methods:

Some narration on NOECO by Roland et al shall be included to make your methods clearer.

Results:

I feel that all data reported by authors should be analyzed and interpreted further, rather than to report as is. For example, the authors reported the cumulative users over time; however, data is only slightly described by the authors in the section of engagement metrics. Interpretation such as the trend of users and tweets, projection in future numbers, the number of users with different number of tweets could add values to the manuscript.

I expect the information such as the locations and twitters can also be further described and interpreted, rather than simply reported the data. (For instance, rhe authors reported from selected countries with numbers, and what about the rest, since the readers will be curious to know, for instance, from a total of 3228, US, UK, Spain and Australia were 494, 467, 110 and 103, what about the other locations of the remaining 2054?)

Of course, the figures attached must be in good resolution, and the detailed information is difficult to read.

Table 1 compared the core components of a CoP and the characteristics of community. This is the key finding that #neoEBM community fits into the 8 features by Aveling. The information in this table shall be further explained by the authors. For example, the top 20 twitter users were identified by the authors, and they were said to be originated from interdependent groups and individuals, and the members cross clinical and organizational boundaries. How does this determination made by the authors were not described and it should be supported by the background data.

As for the content (second row), the authors stated that the twitter users were members united for a common purpose and come to achieve the same aim, how do the authors come to such determination shall be discussed and supported by the analysis. The same also goes to other points in Table 1. A further description on the data will benefit the readers for better understanding.

Discussion:

There were several issues which need attention by the authors. How the authors determined the identity of twitter users, the issue of robotic tweets, potential of mis-hashtag by the users, confidentiality of the tweeted message, issue of the authorship on tweeted information, and etc are factors that potentially affect the interpretation of the data.

Also, I expect the authors to provide some view how the findings will lead to a greater quality improvement (QI) in clinical community in general.

Reference:

The list needs some minor formatting.

Reviewer #3: In my opinion, the study titled “#neoEBM: Building a community practice through social media” is interesting but has major limitations:

� Introduction: A clear rationale for the current study along with use of tools such as “Aveling’s core component of clinical community” is missing.

� Materials and methods: missing inclusion exclusion criteria for evaluating the dependent variables. This is vaguely presented but the actual process must be clearly presented.

� The results section needs significant work. The figure axes are not legible. The quality of figure content is very poor. Additionally, the authors need to elaborate on the results and their relation to the presented figures.

� Figure 2: it is expected that the frequency of tweets would be higher around scientific events as highlighted by the authors. But it is important that the authors elaborate on what this means and involves in their discussion.

� Discussion needs significant work on the above factors.

� In the conclusion, the authors make a case that #neoEBM is an effective tool to disseminate research findings via social media platform (twitter in this case). What percentage of the research community would this reach? Are there any analyses to project the percentage of population it would reach compared to the standard Pubmed, google scholar and other scholar manager approaches? Is the information through #noEBM from twitter reliable? The significance and impact of these findings need to be discussed.

� Finally, the data were not easily accessible to review.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. This paper addresses an interesting topic of building a community through Twitter, in order to increase the dissemination of research recommendation. The idea is great, the team had done a good job in building this community. However, several information was missing. The comments below are intended to further strengthen the paper.

Title

1- The title could be improved by removing the hashtag, to be "Building a community of practice through social media".

Abstract

1- Line 57, can you please provide the long form of any abbreviation when you mention in it the first time, please?

Introduction

1- It was not clear about the context in which the hashtag was introduced. Was there any previous attempt to engage people using for example, a mailing list? Did all the group twitter users get any formal training for using twitter when it was introduced? were there anyone in charge of the hashtag? How many hours per week was spent in observing the hashtag? Was there any previous attempt to assess the utilization of the hashtag?

2- Line 65, can you please add the references numbers based on their appearance in the paper? As the introduction line 63 started with reference number 1, and line 65, the second appeared reference number is 5. Can you please clarify if this should be number 2?

3- Can you please provide a references to the statements in lines 74-76.

4- Can you please provide a definition for the word hashtag, line 77.

Materials and methods

1- Line 83, Can you please comment on the stage of hashtag registration please? Was this completed to assess the analysis using the Symplur software, or was this needed by Twitter, to register official hashtag?

2- Line 85, can you please confirm what is NOECO, please?

3- Line 88, can you please confirm if the "this online tool" refers to Symplur?

4- Line 108, 36% of user's demographics is presented in the paper, can you please confirm the location of the other users please?

5- Line 110, please clarify what is meant by top users?

6- Line 112, can you please define the word bot, please?

7- Can you please comment on the total number of tweets if all of them were about neonatology? Was all the tweets were read/ a sample of the tweets were assessed as part of quality assurance to confirm that the tweets are about neonatology? Or if they were include based on face value, that all tweets were about neonatology? Or were there any user used the hashtag to tweet about another topic?

8- Can you please confirm if there were any duplicated tweets?

9- Can you please provide the definition of the word engagement, please?

10- Have the team considered completing a content or thematic analysis of the tweets?

11- Can you please confirm if you had completed a word association thematic analysis, please?

12- Can you please comment on the analysis that was completed using the software, Symplur, please?

13- Can you please add the information mentioned the price of the software in the method section, please?

Results

1- Line 120-121, can you please clarify the numbers please, as the numbers are not the same as the numbers presented in the abstract line 47-48. Can you please clarify if the numbers should add up to 3,228, please?

2- Can you please clarify the content of the tweets? What are the main themes within the tweets?

3- Can you please confirm if the tweets were used for information dissemination, increase awareness about certain topics, or networking? And what is the percentage of each component?

4- What are the demographics of people tweeting using the hashtag? What was the gender of the people?

5- Can you please confirm what was the average engagement rate, please?

6- Can you please confirm if important information about the characterises of the tweets were factored in the analysis including, the length of the tweets, the time tweet was posted, the number of links in the tweets, and if these variables affected the engagement rate?

Discussion

1- Line 160-161, can you please comment that this statement is based on an observation from 3 reply to one tweet, please?

**********

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: No

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer-plos one.docx

PONE-D-21-01208R1

Building a community of practice through social media using the hashtag #neoEBM

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Keir,

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.

The paper needs a MINOR REVISION. Please follow the suggestion given by the reviewers in order to improve the readability of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 12 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Barbara Guidi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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 #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: Thank you for the detailed comments. No additional comments are available for now. The author addressed majority of the reviewers comments which improved from the paper status.

Reviewer #2: The authors have made significant improvement to the manuscript. The concerns that I raised earlier were appropriately taken into consideration, or with justification to why certain recommendations were not able to be included into the text.

Some minor things that the authors should take note:

Line 67 - should the reference in a square bracket?

Line 77 - a quick search on internet shows that twitter has 330 million accounts - ref 4 might not be an updated source.

Line 167 and Line 207 - the authors stated that #neoEBM as "a tool to disseminate new knowledge" and "disseminate research findings", respectively... this makes the platform to be deemed as a "one way traffic" communication, i.e. from those who know to those who don't, or to those who have conducted research to those who haven't..one-way flow of new information. I would prefer to use "a tool to share knowledge, or to promote knowledge exchange... (i.e. the element of two-way communication) simply because knowledge presented by someone might not necessarily be "new" to everyone. Also, not all member in #neoEBM are researchers, I think. I feel that it is important to point this out, though it is more like my personal opinion. The original concept of CoP by Wenger (1991) is to serve as a platform for novices to meet experts, and if you define CoP as such, it is ok to see that this platform disseminates "new" knowledge and "research findings. However, the authors define CoP based on [1], i.e. a broader and a newer definition of CoP as "a platform to support members to interact with each other, share knowledge, promote knowledge exchange, and build the sense of belonging to the group". .. (see abstract), and therefore it will be more inclusive for the authors to use proper wordings such as share or exchange.

Line 201: Should "all C" be "all CoPs"?

**********

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

[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.

Building a community of practice through social media using the hashtag #neoEBM

PONE-D-21-01208R2

Dear Dr. Keir,

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,

Barbara Guidi

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 have addressed majority of issues raised and the manuscript have improved. No additional comments are

available for now.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the response. I feel that it is now suitable for consideration to be published. It is hope that the authors would continue monitor the development of the platform and, perhaps, update the readers in a future publication.

**********

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: Yes: Sara AL-Musharaf

Reviewer #2: No