Emotion dynamics in movie dialogues

Will E. Hipson; Saif M. Mohammad

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256153

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 1, 2021
28 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Haoran Xie, Editor PONE-D-21-06829 Emotion Dynamics in Movie Dialogues PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hipson, 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 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, Haoran Xie 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. 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. 3. Please modify the title to ensure that it is meeting PLOS’ guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology. PLOS ONE has specific criteria for papers that describe new methods, databases, or software for applications. Specifically, these reports must meet the criteria of utility, validation, and availability, which are described in detail at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods-software-databases-and-tools. To that effect, please address in the manuscript whether the UED metrics proposed here represent a proven advantage over alternative tools, should they exist. [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: I Don't Know ****** 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: 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: The work proposed a new metric, "Utterance Emotion Dynamics", to study emotion-associated words in movie scripts. Following are few comments: 1. I think it would be better to move data description part in front of method section. So the readers would have a clear picture about how the values are generated. 2. Applied methods should be written in one section, for example, the hypothesis testing. 2. Table captions should be at the top of the tables. 3. Lines 24 and 25 are not needed. 4. in Table 2, please define what is "displacement count". 5. Figure 4, please explain what is "the character's location in the v-a space". 6. Line 261, typo: "be explore"? 7. Figures 1 and 2, the presented two characters are chosen randomly? Please explained. 8. Figure 6, it would be better to add S.D. or 1-, 3-quartile in addition to average, to display the variations. 9. About the character-character discordances, is this done by all possible pairs or selected? Please clarify. 10. Lines 187-188, "a turn as a sequence of uninterrupted utterances by a character". What is "uninterrupted", a character continues to talk, without stops? Do scenes change count as interruption? 11. Result section should be made more clear. Reviewer #2: Great subject, which might attract specific interest in various sciences such as neuroscience, psychology, forensic and psychotherapy and performing arts in addition to the relevant industries. Considering recent pandemic which has promoted various meeting via visual technologies, this piece of research would be warmly greeted. It would be interesting to see the further similar studies by the authors and other interested scientists. ****** 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: Yes:** Dr Lily Abedipour MD [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256153.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2021 Author Response Official Response Letter Dear editor and reviewers. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We have made several changes to address them. Details are below (Reviewer comments are italicized): Reviewer 1 comments: 1. I think it would be better to move data description part in front of method section. So the readers would have a clear picture about how the values are generated. Because the metrics can be applied to a variety of data sources, we opted to introduce the metrics first followed by the description of the movie scripts data as the application of the metrics. However, we have included a statement at the beginning of the method (Section: Utterance Emotion Dynamics) explaining that UED metrics can be extracted from a variety of data sources. We also include a pointer to the section specifically describing the Movie Dialogues data. 2. Applied methods should be written in one section, for example, the hypothesis testing. Because of the novelty of the UED metrics, we structured the paper in a way to build complexity and show how the UED metrics can be applied to answer a variety of interesting questions. The first set of results focus on how we can use UED to describe characters’ emotion dynamics. The second set of results focuses squarely on testing hypotheses about wider trends across stories and character interactions. We think this structure helps the reader understand how to use the UED metrics to answer increasingly complex questions about emotion dynamics. 2. Table captions should be at the top of the tables. Fixed. 3. Lines 24 and 25 are not needed. These lines are now a footnote. 4. in Table 2, please define what is "displacement count". We have added a sentence in the UED metrics section more clearly defining displacement count and length. 5. Figure 4, please explain what is "the character's location in the v-a space". Done. We added a sentence describing that it is the character’s v-a rolling average when the word was uttered. 6. Line 261, typo: "be explore"? Fixed. 7. Figures 1 and 2, the presented two characters are chosen randomly? Please explained. Done. We clarify that the two characters chosen were two main characters. 8. Figure 6, it would be better to add S.D. or 1-, 3-quartile in addition to average, to display the variations. Done. We added 95% confidence bands. 9. About the character-character discordances, is this done by all possible pairs or selected? Please clarify. We added a sentence clarifying that discordances were calculated for all possible pairs of characters (who met the inclusion criteria) within each movie. 10. Lines 187-188, "a turn as a sequence of uninterrupted utterances by a character". What is "uninterrupted", a character continues to talk, without stops? Do scenes change count as interruption? We added the following sentence to make this clearer: In other words, a turn begins when a character’s dialogue begins, and ends when either a different character’s dialogue starts or the movie ends. Scene changes do not count as an interruption if the same character speaks at the end of one scene and at the start of the next scene. (This is okay here because we continue to track the emotional state of the character through their utterances before and after scene change.) 11. Result section should be made more clear. We made the following changes to improve the results section: 1. We reduced the amount of reiteration of related work and interpretation that is covered in earlier or later sections. The idea is to keep the results section more clearly focused on the actual findings, while leaving the bulk of contextual information for other sections. 2. We streamlined the reporting of statistical results. We omit overt references to the null hypotheses as these are often clear from the context of the statistical test. 3. Some tangential statistical tests have been made into footnotes. For example, in the hypothesis test of peak discordance, we save the test conducted on the subset of characters present at the beginning and end 10% of the narrative for a later footnote. Reviewer #2 comments: Great subject, which might attract specific interest in various sciences such as neuroscience, psychology, forensic and psychotherapy and performing arts in addition to the relevant industries. Considering recent pandemic which has promoted various meeting via visual technologies, this piece of research would be warmly greeted. It would be interesting to see the further similar studies by the authors and other interested scientists. Thank you for the support and encouragement. We have included some connections of this work, especially with psychology and public health, but we welcome suggestions on specific ways to lnk this work to the various fields you have mentioned. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256153.r002
2 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Haoran Xie, Editor Emotion Dynamics in Movie Dialogues PONE-D-21-06829R1 Dear Dr. Hipson, 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, Haoran Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The paper is ready for publication. 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 ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256153.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Sep 2021 Acceptance Letter - Haoran Xie, Editor PONE-D-21-06829R1 Emotion Dynamics in Movie Dialogues Dear Dr. Hipson: 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 Professor Haoran Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256153.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 .