Quantitative use-wear analysis of stone tools: Measuring how the intensity of use affects the identification of the worked material

Juan José Ibáñez; Niccolò Mazzucco

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257266

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 5, 2021
5 May 2021 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: POINT BY POINT ANSWER.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r001
6 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Enza Elena Spinapolice, Editor PONE-D-21-14694 Quantitative Usewear Analysis of Stone Tools: Measuring How the Intensity of Use Affects the Identification of the Worked Material PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Juan José Ibáñez, 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 September 5, 2021. 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, Enza Elena Spinapolice, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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. [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: I would like to start by acknowledging the value of this contribution to the field of quantitative use-wear-analysis. The authors provide a new set of innovative experiments aimed to enlarging the actual knowledge on the possibility to identify the materials worked with flint tools at different stages of use. This unique fact is sufficient to recommend this paper for publication on PlosOne. Nevertheless, there are some minor issues which should be addressed by the authors before publication. All the comments are intended to improve the quality of this work, which is already notable. I’d suggest the authors to touch on some points which are still crucial in the development of the discipline. To name a few, there is not a general consensus on the right technical (magnifications, NA, area scanned) and analytical parameters (3D analysis) to be used, whether they should be different on different raw materials or not, etc. I’d appreciate to see these topics reflected in the discussion for several reasons. First of all, it should be clear to non-experts that quantitative research is still in its infancy and there is no consensus among experts. In this way, the authors would not create false hopes to the general public by passing on an incomplete and ambiguous message. I, of course, agree with the authors when they say that there are still issues to be solved, such as the impact that PDSMs has on interpretations, before being ready to analyze archeological collections. Regarding presentation of data, although the tables provided here for the classification of materials are clear, I wonder why the authors did not provide matrices instead. Another point that is worth spending some words on (in the discussion maybe?) is in my opinion the fact that the results presented in this paper do not diverge much from observations done by analysts employing qualitative parameters. If we forget for some time about numbers, and we stick to only the descriptive paragraphs focused on the description of the development of polish, I honestly see no difference from the descriptions of the first use-wear analysts (Keeley, Vaughan, Grace). On the one hand, this is very reassuring for the discipline and analysts should not feel threatened anymore by the application of quantitative methods. On the other hand, and this is the trickiest question to be answered by us, do we really need to go to such fine details? Do we need to go on with quantitative studies? Do we need to standardize parameters in order to compare datasets? If the answer is yes, I would like to see why this is the case and your opinion on this matter shall somehow be explicit in the text. This would hopefully trigger a scientific debate and the discipline would follow its natural course. Reviewer #2: Very interesting and useful paper. This approach has great potential for creating a digital open access experimental database for use-wear analysis. I cannot fully judge the statistical support of the paper, but methodologically it is certainly good. It is well illustrated, well written, but the references need a check: authors are sometimes missing and initials are incorrect. A term like editores should be changed to editors. Although the authors make reference to previous work on quantification, they could clarify better what is really new here in comparison to past conclusions about use-wear inferences. They conclude that there is overlap between for example wood and bone and bone and antler polish and mention the difficulty of distinguishing meat cutting wear. However, we have known this for decades. So, what exactly have we learned that is different from what we already know? I am not contesting the usefulness of their approach, quite the contrary, but they might push this more, and make clear why this type of quantification can bring us further or what could be the practical applicability for a larger research community. Not everyone has access to a confocal microscope. I am also still not convinced that we can speak of a "correct identification" of polishes: yes, of course in experimental context we can, but our inferences on archaeological tool use are based on analogies. Past technologies were most likely far more complex than we can imagine and our experiments are often way too simplistic: there are several archaeological polish types for which we have yet to find an experimental equivalent, even after decades of experimental exploration. After the first analysis the "success rate" is presented to be around 60%, if I understand the text well. The statement that after a second round of statistical analysis virtually all classifications were correct, does not entirely convince me as this is based on a combined analysis of length of use with contact material. Length of use is, as the authors themselves acknowledge, not the only factor behind intensity of polishes (strength, skill, fatigue etc). In conclusion my advise is "accept with minor revision". Although not questioning the usefulness of the quantitative approach presented in this paper, I think the paper would benefit from a short critical appraisal of its potential and limitations in the conclusion of the paper. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r002
Revision 1
16 Jul 2021 Author Response We are extremely grateful to both reviewers for their valuable commentaries. Response to Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: I would like to start by acknowledging the value of this contribution to the field of quantitative use-wear-analysis. The authors provide a new set of innovative experiments aimed to enlarging the actual knowledge on the possibility to identify the materials worked with flint tools at different stages of use. This unique fact is sufficient to recommend this paper for publication on PlosOne. Nevertheless, there are some minor issues which should be addressed by the authors before publication. All the comments are intended to improve the quality of this work, which is already notable. I’d suggest the authors to touch on some points which are still crucial in the development of the discipline. To name a few, there is not a general consensus on the right technical (magnifications, NA, area scanned) and analytical parameters (3D analysis) to be used, whether they should be different on different raw materials or not, etc. I’d appreciate to see these topics reflected in the discussion for several reasons. First of all, it should be clear to non-experts that quantitative research is still in its infancy and there is no consensus among experts. In this way, the authors would not create false hopes to the general public by passing on an incomplete and ambiguous message. I, of course, agree with the authors when they say that there are still issues to be solved, such as the impact that PDSMs has on interpretations, before being ready to analyze archeological collections. A few sentences have been added in the Discussion: ‘Quantitative usewear analysis is a growing field of research. […] Each new study explores new issues related with different facets of this new technique: the area to be measured and samples, the magnification to be used, the most relevant surface parameters, etc. Usewear from different worked materials (plant, animal) and on different raw-materials (flint, pottery, bones, etc.)35,47,48,50,5 1are tested and included in this field of study. All these pilot studies will allow building a consensus on practices to be followed.’ In the Materials and Methods section, we already explicate why we chose areas of 50 x 50 μm: ‘Samples of 50 × 50 μm were selected from the stitched areas. The size of the samples was chosen because antler or bone working tools do not show extended polished surfaces, so it was not possible to choose more extensive areas for this contact material and we aimed to maintain the size of the analyzed surface constant for all the contact materials.’ However, we agree with the Reviewer, that in the future, it will be interesting to test as well other magnifications, for example using an X50 objective. This field of research is currently being built and each new case-study contributes to its development. Regarding presentation of data, although the tables provided here for the classification of materials are clear, I wonder why the authors did not provide matrices instead. Matrices are provided as part of supplementary materials. Another point that is worth spending some words on (in the discussion maybe?) is in my opinion the fact that the results presented in this paper do not diverge much from observations done by analysts employing qualitative parameters. If we forget for some time about numbers, and we stick to only the descriptive paragraphs focused on the description of the development of polish, I honestly see no difference from the descriptions of the first use-wear analysts (Keeley, Vaughan, Grace). On the one hand, this is very reassuring for the discipline and analysts should not feel threatened anymore by the application of quantitative methods. On the other hand, and this is the trickiest question to be answered by us, do we really need to go to such fine details? Do we need to go on with quantitative studies? Do we need to standardize parameters in order to compare datasets? If the answer is yes, I would like to see why this is the case and your opinion on this matter shall somehow be explicit in the text. This would hopefully trigger a scientific debate and the discipline would follow its natural course. A paragraph has been added: ‘What have we learnt in this analysis with respect to previous models of polish development obtained through qualitative methods? Use-wear polish is a dynamic process all along the time of use, what confirms R. Grace’s claims. However, most of the textural modifications take place during the first phases of use, while in the more advanced ones polish is more stable, what can be identified with the third phase of polish development advocated by P. Vaughan. Definitely, polish from working different materials do not pass through the same phases of texture modification as defended by R. Grace. The existence of different ‘ways of development’ of polish generated by the worked materials explains why the experienced use-wear analysts are able to identify the worked material by qualitative methods, as the human brain can build visual models in which polish from different worked materials are characterized at the different steps of use. If the qualitative method is valuable, do we really need quantitative methods? In general, quantitative methods provide more reliable identifications, as they are not biased by inter and intra analysts inconsistencies. Quantitative data on use-wear can be stocked, shared and models continuously improved with new experiments. Moreover, as we have shown in our analysis of sickle gloss, quantitative methods allow more detailed identifications (i.e. wild cereals harvested in natural stands, cultivated wild cereals, domestic cereals, reeds and other grasses) which are very difficult even for experienced specialists. Discussing the role of quantitative methods in use-wear analysis merits detailed argumentation in a new paper. In anyway, quantitative and qualitative methods are definitively complementary.’ Reviewer #2: Very interesting and useful paper. This approach has great potential for creating a digital open access experimental database for use-wear analysis. I cannot fully judge the statistical support of the paper, but methodologically it is certainly good. It is well illustrated, well written, but the references need a check: authors are sometimes missing and initials are incorrect. A term like editores should be changed to editors. References have been corrected. Although the authors make reference to previous work on quantification, they could clarify better what is really new here in comparison to past conclusions about use-wear inferences. They conclude that there is overlap between for example wood and bone and bone and antler polish and mention the difficulty of distinguishing meat cutting wear. However, we have known this for decades. So, what exactly have we learned that is different from what we already know? I am not contesting the usefulness of their approach, quite the contrary, but they might push this more, and make clear why this type of quantification can bring us further or what could be the practical applicability for a larger research community. Not everyone has access to a confocal microscope. A paragraph has been added: ‘Despite the dynamic nature of polish was assumed by use-wear analysts, no models of polish evolution have been proposed, apart from the very general P. Vaughan’s three categories. This lack of models explains two weaknesses of qualitative methods with respect to the identification of worked materials: 1) the capacity to discriminate the worked materials in the first phases of use (generic weak polish) and 2) the overlapping of different types of polishes in the more advanced phases of development (i.e. bone/antler or bone/wood). These two difficulties have been quantitatively demonstrated in our study. For the first time, we have defined specific models of polish development for the five worked materials up to one hour of work. Our quantitative models combining type of worked material and phase of development allow partially overcoming these limitations. First, it is possible discriminate the five worked materials in the first phases of use, at least after 10 minutes of work. Second, in our models, overlapping of worked materials is restricted to antler/bone between 40 and 50 minutes of work. I am also still not convinced that we can speak of a "correct identification" of polishes: yes, of course in experimental context we can, but our inferences on archaeological tool use are based on analogies. Past technologies were most likely far more complex than we can imagine and our experiments are often way too simplistic: there are several archaeological polish types for which we have yet to find an experimental equivalent, even after decades of experimental exploration. After the first analysis the "success rate" is presented to be around 60%, if I understand the text well. The statement that after a second round of statistical analysis virtually all classifications were correct, does not entirely convince me as this is based on a combined analysis of length of use with contact material. Length of use is, as the authors themselves acknowledge, not the only factor behind intensity of polishes (strength, skill, fatigue etc). A paragraph has been added: ‘We have shown that the analysis of polish texture allows the identification of the intensity of use. This opens a new field of research that should be considered with care. We have used the time of use as the vector defining the intensity of work. However, at the same time, we have shown that hafted an unhafted tools used for the same lapse of time bear different intensities of polish development. Other factors besides hafting, as the strength or experience of the worker, the way in which the worked material is hold (i.e. a hide in a frame or on a surface) and so on can affect the intensity of use. This question opens a new challenge for quantitative use-wear analysis. If the time of work is not the only factor affecting the intensity of use (and the texture modification of polish), how can we build precise dynamic models of polish development? For example, a specific degree of textural modification can correspond to working during 50 minutes with an unhafted tool or for15 minutes with a hafted one. We have defined the intensity of use as steps of 10 minutes of work. Most probably, future dynamic models of use-wear polish will be defined as multifactorial regressions of textural parameters, so tools of unknown intensity of use would be identified with a relative point of intensity of work in the regression model. In anyway, polish texture should be used to compare different intensities of use only IF the rest of the variables characterizing work are similar (i.e. sickles used for harvesting).’ In conclusion my advise is "accept with minor revision". Although not questioning the usefulness of the quantitative approach presented in this paper, I think the paper would benefit from a short critical appraisal of its potential and limitations in the conclusion of the paper. Potential and limitations have been now made apparent in the conclusion of the paper: ‘Some of the aspects which need further research are shared with qualitative use-wear analysis, as the need for more realistic experiments, reproducing the enormous variability of working procedures in the Prehistoric past.’ […] ‘Other issues that should be developed are specific for the quantitative studies. In order to standardize the analysis, it is necessary to reach a consensus between specialists on the technical aspects of the methodology (microscope proprieties and chosen techniques of analysis, magnifications, filtering procedure, parameters of texture and so on). Thus, we are convinced that the further development of quantitative methods imply the collaboration of several research groups.’ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Review Comments to the Author (002).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r003
28 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Enza Elena Spinapolice, Editor PONE-D-21-14694R1 Quantitative Use-wear Analysis of Stone Tools: Measuring How the Intensity of Use Affects the Identification of the Worked Material PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ibanez, 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. In particular, please check the complete reference list, as suggested by Reviewer 2. Please submit your revised manuscript by September 1, 2021. 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, Enza Elena Spinapolice, Ph.D 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: 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 #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I did not check all references but in two that I know well I still found mistakes (authors missing, year wrong). Below the correct references: Guzzo Falci., Cuisin J., Delpuech A., Gijn. A.L. van & Hofman C.L. (2018), New insights into use-wear development in bodily ornaments through the study of ethnographic collections, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory: 1-51 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9389-8 Unrath G., Owen L.R., Gijn A.L. van, Moss E.H., Plisson H. & Vaughan P. (1986), An evaluation of micro-wear studies: a multi-analyst approach.. In: Unrath G., Owen L.R. (Eds.) Technical aspects of micro-wear studies on stone tools.. Tubingen: Archeologica Venatoria. 117-176. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r004
Revision 2
31 Jul 2021 Author Response We have corrected the references as suggested by reviewer 2 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rensponse to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r005
31 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Enza Elena Spinapolice, Editor Quantitative Use-wear Analysis of Stone Tools: Measuring How the Intensity of Use Affects the Identification of the Worked Material PONE-D-21-14694R2 Dear Dr. Ibanez, 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, Enza Elena Spinapolice, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please check and edit the reference list. Here some suggestions from the reviewer 2 I did not check all references but in two that I know well I still found mistakes (authors missing, year wrong). Below the correct references: Guzzo Falci., Cuisin J., Delpuech A., Gijn. A.L. van & Hofman C.L. (2018), New insights into use-wear development in bodily ornaments through the study of ethnographic collections, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory: 1-51 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9389-8 Unrath G., Owen L.R., Gijn A.L. van, Moss E.H., Plisson H. & Vaughan P. (1986), An evaluation of micro-wear studies: a multi-analyst approach.. In: Unrath G., Owen L.R. (Eds.) Technical aspects of micro-wear studies on stone tools.. Tubingen: Archeologica Venatoria. 117-176. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r006
Formally Accepted
2 Sep 2021 Acceptance Letter - Enza Elena Spinapolice, Editor PONE-D-21-14694R2 Quantitative Use-wear Analysis of Stone Tools: Measuring How the Intensity of Use Affects the Identification of the Worked Material Dear Dr. Ibáñez: 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. Enza Elena Spinapolice Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.r007

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 .