PONE-D-21-15877

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bloss,

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 Aug 06 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,

Lisa Susan Wieland

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 ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations

[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

**********

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: This is an interesting and well-researched paper, illustrating the often poor reporting of literature search methods in dental systematic reviews. The writing is clear and the data is well-presented, with limitations acknowledged and neatly described.

I have some minor comments for the authors:

1. Lines 43-44: the statement that: "More limited studies nonetheless indicate that shortcomings in reporting and methodological quality extend to reviews published in dental medicine" - I would expect to see some referencing to support this (I don't doubt that is true!). For example, El-Rabbany M, Li S, Bui S, Muir JM, Bhandari M, Azarpazhooh A. A Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry, Part 1: Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2017 Dec;17(4):389-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.06.004. Epub 2017 Jun 28. PMID: 29197440. This paper reports some improvement in dental SRs, but also that "there is considerable room for improvement" still. It would support this statement I think.

2. How did the team determine that the SR authors were/were not librarians or information scientists? Was this simply down to self-reporting of the job titles in the author line? I'm guessing so, but it would be good to have this spelled out explicitly.

3. Is there any data to support the assertion in lines 84-85 that there is a correlation between the number of databases searched and the quality of the search? It may be reasonable to search only selected databases depending on the topic and there may be reduced efficiency / some search redundancy involved in searching a large number of databases if this is not warranted. It may be interesting to look at a subset of reviews which searched more than four databases and check that wider searching was justified by the topic. I believe that information scientists are generally moving away from the assumption that more databases searched is equal to a higher quality search, see the paper by Bramer et al, which instead considers optimal databases to search: Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J. et al. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev 6, 245 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y.

4. Lines 151-154: This paragraph is a little confusing. What do you mean by "significance" in this context? What exactly was being measured?

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This topic is of enormous interest to me, and I am happy to see that further research is being conducted in this area. In this article, the authors examine systematic reviews published in dental journals to assess the role and impact of librarians, the reproducibility of searches, and the quality of searches. This work builds upon prior work by others in clinical medical fields. The sheer volume of assessed manuscripts and searches in this work is impressive; having conducted similar research myself, I know that assessing search quality, for example, can take multiple hours for one search.

After reading this article, I have several questions and comments that I hope can help the authors strengthen this impactful manuscript.

1. Based on the content of the manuscript, I was surprised not to see several key papers cited and referenced, including the two major papers on errors in search strategies (Salvador-Olivan et al 2019 and Sampson & McGowan 2006) and PRESS (McGowan et al 2016). It seems that these might bring possibilities for direct comparisons, if not just references.

2. Regarding the text, Finding What Works in Health Care, the authors (correctly) note that it was published by the Institute of Medicine. Since the name of that organization has changed, it may be beneficial to readers to note the new name as well.

3. Line 75: The authors note that previous studies focused on internal medicine, yet they also cite relevant work looking at pediatrics, surgery, and cardiology. Perhaps this should be “clinical medicine” instead of “internal medicine”?

4. The authors do not discuss the role of librarian authorship in the introduction specifically, yet it is one of the primary research questions. Perhaps it would be helpful to add a brief sentence describing why this would be important in the intro?

5. Lines 95-99: The authors do not say when the search took place, and neither do they comment anywhere in the article on the time period included in their search and/or results. It would be helpful to state the dates of the searches as well as that there was no limit in date (if that is the case).

6. Line 97: The authors clearly conducted their search prior to the new revision of the PubMed systematic reviews subset search. It might be helpful to note that this was the active query at the date of the search; it is completely different today.

7. Lines 129-36: It was not clear to me; did the authors actually copy and paste in the searches to test reproducibility? It appears they may have, but this is not spelled out. If they did, this would be the first study to do so, which should be noted.

8. Lines 137-143: It was helpful that the study instrument was linked here, but I admit that I did not review the instrument immediately; I was therefore greatly surprised by many of the results, which did not appear to be mentioned in the manuscript. I would suggest that the main data elements, especially those reported in the results, should be listed and/or briefly described in the manuscript.

9. Lines 137-43: When assessing searches for quality, were the authors blinded to: the authors, the presence of a librarian, the findings from the first review, etc? The practice of duplicate assessment would reduce some of the inherent bias, certainly, but when librarians are assessing other librarians’ work, there may unconscious bias at play (both in that we would expect more from each other, so we might be pickier, and the opposite, that we would rate quality higher because it would match our expectations).

10. Lines 146-48: How did the authors conduct their analysis? What statistics were planned to be used? What were the planned analyses (i.e., multivariate regression? Linear regression?)? I see one location (line 173) where the authors mention one statistical analysis used, but this is the only place. For example, see the primary comparative articles that are similar topics for their analytical methods: Koffel et al, Meert et al, Rethlefsen et al.

11. It would be helpful to have other information about the data set in the results; information about years included, number of reviews per journal title, etc, could potentially help readers get a better grasp on what is actually being studied.

12. Lines 151-154: I appreciate that the authors are being up front that there is no statistical significance here, but I think that this should be located further down in the results—and the type of analysis used should be described in the methods.

13. Line 163 (and Lines 129-43): The authors do not make it explicitly clear whether they assessed whether ALL searches are available, or whether having AT LEAST ONE search available counts for the measure, “included the full search strategy.” This is a very different metric, and while I suspect it was “at least one” and not “all” (based on line 168, e.g., saying “a full search strategy”), this would be helpful to comment upon, as would the change in requirements for reporting between PRISMA 2009 and PRISMA 2020/PRISMA-S.

14. Lines 172-6: There is nothing in the appendices or the methods that I can see that discusses using an overall scored quality assessment. Am I missing it? This would definitely need to be discussed, along with details about how reviewer concordance/interrater reliability was assessed.

15. Lines 224-33: Because the authors’ data collection instrument uses binary responses to challenging questions, I think it is really difficult to say whether degree of librarian involvement led to anything. For example, one article without a librarian mentioned might use a single keyword for a search, missing potentially multiple synonyms. An article with a librarian author might have 10 keyword synonyms for a concept, but could miss one. They would have the same results in this study, however, because there is not a measurement of degree. I think it would be informative for the authors to discuss this as a limitation. I also think it would be really difficult to assess these for over 400 articles, in duplicate—pretty impressive! For example, Salvador-Olivan et al only examined 137 articles. It’s clear the scale of this work necessitated this simpler method.

16. Lines 238-46: I’m not entirely convinced that the authors’ conclusion matches their findings; to me, I can’t see any effect of librarian co-authorship on search quality (though clearly there is an association in the inclusion of a full search). Are the authors weighing some of their findings higher than others? It seems to be about evenly split between those areas where librarian co-authors are better and worse.

17. Discussion section: There is no comparison with other research anywhere in the Discussion section, which makes it hard to understand the context of these findings. Do they differ from other disciplines? Do they match other (non-librarians’) studies done in dental medicine? I would really like to see an expanded discussion section here, as I think this is an important study that would benefit from contextualization.

18. Line 269-70: The authors could cite Koffel here (#21) as evidence that others have shown that librarians are not always mentioned, even when they played a significant role.

19. Line 272: The authors suggest that bias was “limited where possible,” but I’m not clear on how that happened—was it just reviewing in duplicate?

20. Lines 277-8. I would suggest restating this sentence as, “Overall findings suggest that involvement of a librarian is associated with more reproducible searches and improved methodological reporting in dental medicine systematic reviews, though the association is non-significant.”

21. The Appendices lack titles, which makes it difficult to quickly identify.

22. Appendix D: What is meant by a grey lit search? How did the authors define it (this should really be in the Methods section)?

23. Figures: I may be missing something, but do the figures have captions? It was really difficult to figure out what I was looking at just by looking at the figure.

24. Fig 1: I’m not sold on how this figure was composed. I find it really confusing, personally. I think it would be more effective to use all of the search data here (including no search), as that would more starkly show the differences—and wouldn’t necessitate readers figuring out that the 100% only refers to 2 of the 3 collected data points.

25. Figures: Fig 2 and 3 use black for “no mention of a librarian.” The remaining figures use black for “librarian as co-author.” This is incredibly confusing.

26. Fig. 3: Why did the authors analyze librarian participation prior to deduplication? Seems odd.

27. Fig 5: Are the numbers here referring to number of articles with errors in line numbers? Or it looks like percentages of articles? Did most of the articles even use line numbers? How did you account for not applicable responses? From this graph, it appears pretty clearly that librarians make lots and lots of errors, except with brackets and Boolean, compared to non-specialists.

**********

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: Yes: Anne Littlewood

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.

PONE-D-21-15877R1

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bloss,

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 both the reviewer clarifications of previous comments and the new comments regarding reorganizing text and providing citations.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 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,

Lisa Susan Wieland

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 #2: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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 #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 #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 #2: I thank the authors for their excellent work addressing reviewer comments, and I appreciate the chance to review their revised version. This version addresses nearly all of the comments, and the manuscript now offers more context to readers and offers clarity on a number of areas. I have a few remaining questions and comments.

1. The authors do not discuss the role of librarian authorship in the introduction specifically, yet it is one of the primary research questions. Perhaps it would be helpful to add a brief sentence describing why this would be important in the intro?

The authors have added additional content to the introduction, but I am not seeing any addition of information specifically about librarian co-authorship. I still think it would be helpful to mention something specifically about authorship prior to the research questions. The same is true with grey literature, which is a research question, but is not specifically addressed in the intro.

2. Line 97: The authors clearly conducted their search prior to the new revision of the PubMed systematic reviews subset search. It might be helpful to note that this was the active query at the date of the search; it is completely different today.

This item was unfortunately written poorly by me. I meant that the systematic review subset search has changed, not PubMed (though that is also true). If the authors compare the current PubMed systematic reviews search with the old one, they will see it has significantly changed. However, with the date included, it will help readers understand that this was the subset search at the time of that search. Unfortunately, NLM doesn’t seem to track versions of this search anywhere that I’ve seen.

3. Lines 146-48: How did the authors conduct their analysis? What statistics were planned to be used? What were the planned analyses (i.e., multivariate regression? Linear regression?)? I see one location (line 173) where the authors mention one statistical analysis used, but this is the only place. For example, see the primary comparative articles that are similar topics for their analytical methods: Koffel et al, Meert et al, Rethlefsen et al.

I appreciate the additional detail provided by the authors about their analyses. I think there is still more work to be done here. “Mostly” should be avoided. What variables were tested using chi squares, e.g.

4. It would be helpful to have other information about the data set in the results; information about years included, number of reviews per journal title, etc, could potentially help readers get a better grasp on what is actually being studied. AUTHOR RESPONSE: Unfortunately, we do not have data about number of reviews per journal. Added language to data analysis section for more clarity.

I think the authors do have this information, or I would hope so? Do you not have the citations for the included studies?

5. Discussion section: There is no comparison with other research anywhere in the Discussion section, which makes it hard to understand the context of these findings. Do they differ from other disciplines? Do they match other (non-librarians’) studies done in dental medicine? I would really like to see an expanded discussion section here, as I think this is an important study that would benefit from contextualization.

A few new comments:

6. The authors very nicely lay out new research questions. The associated detail with those questions, however, should be in the methods section. Lines 93-6; 99-101

7. PRISMA 2009, PRISMA 2020, and PRISMA-S are mentioned in several places in the text, but the latter two are not cited. It would be appropriate to add citations. (Lines 397; 432-3)

8. I could be missing something, but it looks to me like the information in lines 272-5 is redundant with the information in the paragraph above—with one major caveat. The caveat is that, in line 270, I think 71% is supposed to be 74%.

9. Lines 307-310: The authors may want to consider moving this up to be their first data point in the results, as the analyses do all seem to depend upon it.

**********

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 #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.

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

PONE-D-21-15877R2

Dear Dr. Bloss,

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,

Lisa Susan Wieland

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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 #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 #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 #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 #2: No