Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading

Liyan Ji; Lin Cai; Aiai Ji

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258570

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 16, 2021
27 May 2021 Decision Letter - Nicola Molinaro, Editor PONE-D-21-12659 Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ji, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The Reviewers identified a number of points that should be clarified in your Manuscript. The literature is not properly covered and the implications of the present findings should be strengthened. Additional data could be added in an appendix. Finally, the statistical approach could be improved. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 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, Nicola Molinaro, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender). 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study on pragmatic respectfulness effects on processing second person pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. The study seems appropriately motivated and described and well conducted. The results are fairly clear. I have some comments that the authors should consider when producing a new version of the paper: · What are the (written and spoken) corpus frequencies of the two pronouns nin/ni? Can frequency effects explain the observed ERPs in the first time window (for inconsistent nin but not for inconsistent ni)? · Please provide details about artifact rejection. How were artifacts identified? What counts as “excessive artifacts”? · Please provide examples and a more detailed description of fillers. Please provide an analysis of ERP data for fillers (e.g., in appendix) · Filtering (lines 202-203): be explicit about which filters were on-line (during recording) and which filters were applied off-line (during preprocessing) · “Depending on the results of the baseline time window…”: this part was the least clear to me; please describe clearly how the baseline data were analysed and how results impacted the analysis of the main ERP comparisons · On selecting windows for statistical analysis: I recommend using a clustering approach in the time/channel dimensions (e.g., Maris & Ostenveld 2007) to identify effects · Some discussion about late negativities in ERP research is missing: several studies have reported such effects (e.g., Nref: Nieuwland & van Berkum 2008; SAN: Baggio et al. 2008 etc.), it would be important to discuss how the process of resolving respectfulness inconsistencies relates to other processes associated with similar ERP effects. Reviewer #2: The study investigates the use of plain vs respectful second-person pronouns in Mandarin. The use of the pronoun is guided by politeness factors. It closely moves from the results of another work showing that the use of respectful-pro in an inconsistent context elicited an anterior negativity 300-500 and a sustained positivity 800-1600. the use of plain-pro in an inconsistent context instead elicited a broad negativity and a sustained negativity. Authors observe that the study has a few issues (lack of appropriate fillers and baseline problems), and want to assess the replicability of the findings. Differently from the study of Jiang et al 2013 authors report an asymmetry between pronoun types during the N400 time window: inconsistent (compared to consistent) use of the respectful-pro elicited a larger N400, which was not observed with plain-pro. The study may be of interest, for PLOS readership, but its scope is rather narrow, considering that it closely moves from a previous work. Still, I think it has same merits in these times of replication crisis, but before being apt for publication I thinks authors should revise it, focusing on the writing quality and on the interpretation of the results, which may be more nuanced in several sections of the text. A few specific comments follow: introduction - perhaps the focus of the introduction could be more on the use of respectful forms of in chinese and on the reasons why it is an important topic. the analysis and critique of Jiang et al, should be a subsection of the introduction on its own. following the critique, authors should describe how "the present study" will overcome the previous study's limits and then clearly spell out the experimental predictions method - I cannot see anything wrong in the analysis of the ERP data. the only thing is that the details on the artifact rejection procedure should be moved in the ERP analysis section - baseline correction is not explained clearly enough: it seems that instead of using 200 ms before pro, authors chose 200 ms before the onset of the whole sentence. if this is how it was done, it is fine for me, but it could be explained better. discussion - it is true that anterior negativities are quite often reported in the study of pragmatic phenomena. They are also found in literary metaphor comeprehension (Bambini, Canal, Resta & Grimaldi 2019 - Discourse processes), and when ambiguous anaphoric relations are computed (e.g., Nieuwland 2014, Neuropsychologia ; Canal, Garnham & Oakhill, 2015, Frontiers). In metaphor it has been interpreted as reflecting mechanisms related to the drawing of an array of weak implicatures, rather than one straightforward implicature (which is instead associated with larger P600/LPC). in anaphor procesing the Nref is associated with the search for additional information in the mental representation of the discourse. These studies may help the authors in elaborating a little bit more on the functional meaning of their findings, which as it is now has very limited implications. Also discourse linking and update mechanisms proposed by Petra Schumacher may help in the interpretation of the N400 effect in the context of pronoun resolution (Schumacher, P. B. (2012). Context in neurolinguistics. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a Context?: Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 33–53). There are many typos, and the writing quality should be improved - to make data fully available they should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. ****** 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:** Paolo Canal 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.0258570.r001
Revision 1
21 Jul 2021 Author Response We thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions concerning revisions to the manuscript. The revised parts of the main text are highlighted in blue. We detailed our responses to the reviewers’ points below. Reviewers' comments: Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study on pragmatic respectfulness effects on processing second person pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. The study seems appropriately motivated and described and well conducted. The results are fairly clear. I have some comments that the authors should consider when producing a new version of the paper: 1. What are the (written and spoken) corpus frequencies of the two pronouns nin/ni? Can frequency effects explain the observed ERPs in the first time window (for inconsistent nin but not for inconsistent ni)? Response: The present study reported a more negative response for Nin inconsistent than Nin consistent, but not for the comparison between Ni inconsistent and Ni consistent. These results can not be due to the frequency difference of the two pronouns. First, the usage frequency for nin is 515 per million and 39629 per million for ni (Cai and Brysbaert, 2010). Generally, words with a word frequency greater than 50 per million are considered high frequency words, so both critical words (ni and nin) are high frequency words (Wang and Zhang, 2021). Furthermore, we didn’t compare the pronoun Nin with Ni directly in the present study, but compared the effect for Nin consistency (the difference between Nin inconsistent and Nin consistent) with the effect for Ni consistency (the difference between Ni inconsistent and Ni consistent). Therefore, the frequency effects can not explain the observed ERPs in the present study. We have added this information on page 9 (lines 170-171) as follows: “ There is a high-frequency usage for both nin (515 per million) and ni (39629 per million) [20].” 2. Please provide details about artifact rejection. How were artifacts identified? What counts as “excessive artifacts”? Response: The obvious artifacts (over 150 μV) were first deleted by visual inspection before the data analysis. After epoching, trials with a voltage, relative to the 200 ms baseline, exceeding ±65μV at any electrode were excluded through artifact rejection. Participants with less than 30 trials for each condition left were identified as participants with excessive artifacts and were excluded from further data analysis. We have supplemented these details in the EEG data Preprocessing section on page 12, lines 237-244. 3. Please provide examples and a more detailed description of fillers. Please provide an analysis of ERP data for fillers (e.g., in appendix) Response: We apologize for the unclear descriptions of fillers. We have added a table of example sentences of fillers in supplementary materials (see Table S1), and provided a more detailed description of fillers on page 10. line 186-189. We didn’t conduct ERP analysis on the ERP data of fillers since the critical word in the fillers did not counterbalanced. Furthermore, the result of fillers won’t help for the explanation of the present results. 4. Filtering (lines 202-203): be explicit about which filters were on-line (during recording) and which filters were applied off-line (during preprocessing). Response: We apologize for the unclear descriptions. We have added the information about filtering on page 11(lines 222-224) as follows: “The EEG signals were sampled at 500 Hz with a band-pass filtered 0.016–100 Hz online and were filtered again offline with a band-pass of 0.1–40 Hz for data analysis. ” 5. “Depending on the results of the baseline time window…”: this part was the least clear to me; please describe clearly how the baseline data were analysed and how results impacted the analysis of the main ERP comparisons. Response: We apologize for the unclear descriptions. In order to rule out the potential influence of prior context on the ERP effect for the critical word, we checked baseline differences by using the blank interval prior to the presentation of the first word as the baseline. A long epoch was conducted from 200 ms prior to the first word and 3200 ms before presenting the critical word, then the time window of 3000-3200 ms was the baseline for the critical word analysis (see figure in "response to reviewers" for illustration). Statistical analyses were conducted on the average amplitude during the 3000-3200ms time window. The result showed that there was no significant main effect or interaction involving factors of pronoun type and pronoun consistency. Thus, the potential baseline problem could be excluded and then baseline correction could be conducted in the following analyses. Otherwise, baseline correction would not be conducted and instead a high pass filtering would be applied as suggested by Widmann et al. (2014). We have rewritten the description of baseline correction in the revised manuscript (page 12, lines 230-234). 6. On selecting windows for statistical analysis: I recommend using a clustering approach in the time/channel dimensions (e.g., Maris & Ostenveld 2007) to identify effects Response: Thanks for your suggestions on the statistical methods. We have conducted the cluster-based permutation tests, and added the details of these tests and the results in the updated manuscript (pages 13-14, page 17). 7. Some discussion about late negativities in ERP research is missing: several studies have reported such effects (e.g., Nref: Nieuwland & van Berkum 2008; SAN: Baggio et al. 2008 etc.), it would be important to discuss how the process of resolving respectfulness inconsistencies relates to other processes associated with similar ERP effects. Response: We have reorganized the Discussion section and incorporated related studies in the revision (pages 18-22). Reviewer #2: The study investigates the use of plain vs respectful second-person pronouns in Mandarin. The use of the pronoun is guided by politeness factors. It closely moves from the results of another work showing that the use of respectful-pro in an inconsistent context elicited an anterior negativity 300-500 and a sustained positivity 800-1600. the use of plain-pro in an inconsistent context instead elicited a broad negativity and a sustained negativity. Authors observe that the study has a few issues (lack of appropriate fillers and baseline problems), and want to assess the replicability of the findings. Differently from the study of Jiang et al 2013 authors report an asymmetry between pronoun types during the N400 time window: inconsistent (compared to consistent) use of the respectful-pro elicited a larger N400, which was not observed with plain-pro. The study may be of interest, for PLOS readership, but its scope is rather narrow, considering that it closely moves from a previous work. Still, I think it has same merits in these times of replication crisis, but before being apt for publication I thinks authors should revise it, focusing on the writing quality and on the interpretation of the results, which may be more nuanced in several sections of the text. A few specific comments follow: introduction 1. perhaps the focus of the introduction could be more on the use of respectful forms of in chinese and on the reasons why it is an important topic. the analysis and critique of Jiang et al, should be a subsection of the introduction on its own. following the critique, authors should describe how "the present study" will overcome the previous study's limits and then clearly spell out the experimental predictions Response: We have reorganized the introduction section in the updated manuscript. method 2. I cannot see anything wrong in the analysis of the ERP data. the only thing is that the details on the artifact rejection procedure should be moved in the ERP analysis section Response: We have moved the details on the artifact rejection to the section of EEG data preprocessing on page 12, lines 230-237. 3. baseline correction is not explained clearly enough: it seems that instead of using 200 ms before pro, authors chose 200 ms before the onset of the whole sentence. if this is how it was done, it is fine for me, but it could be explained better. Response: We apologize for this unclear description. In the present study, we used the 200ms before the critical word as a baseline. In order to rule out the potential influence of prior context on the ERP effect for the critical word, we first checked baseline differences by using the blank interval prior to the presentation of the first word as the baseline. Then a long epoch was conducted from 200 ms prior to the first word and 3200 ms before presenting the critical word (time-locked to the first word), thus the time window of 3000-3200 ms was the baseline for the critical word analysis (see figure in "response to reviewers" for illustration). Statistical analyses were conducted on the average amplitude during the 3000-3200ms time window. The result showed that there was no significant main effect or interaction involving factors of pronoun type and pronoun consistency. Therefore, the potential baseline problem could be excluded, and it is safe to use the 200-ms before the critical word as a baseline, then baseline correction was conducted on the analysis of the epoch time locked to the critical word. We have rewritten the description of baseline correction in the revised manuscript (page 12, lines 230-234). discussion 4. it is true that anterior negativities are quite often reported in the study of pragmatic phenomena. They are also found in literary metaphor comeprehension (Bambini, Canal, Resta & Grimaldi 2019 - Discourse processes), and when ambiguous anaphoric relations are computed (e.g., Nieuwland 2014, Neuropsychologia ; Canal, Garnham & Oakhill, 2015, Frontiers). In metaphor it has been interpreted as reflecting mechanisms related to the drawing of an array of weak implicatures, rather than one straightforward implicature (which is instead associated with larger P600/LPC). in anaphor procesing the Nref is associated with the search for additional information in the mental representation of the discourse. These studies may help the authors in elaborating a little bit more on the functional meaning of their findings, which as it is now has very limited implications. Also discourse linking and update mechanisms proposed by Petra Schumacher may help in the interpretation of the N400 effect in the context of pronoun resolution (Schumacher, P. B. (2012). Context in neurolinguistics. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a Context?: Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 33–53). Response: Thank you very much for these helpful suggestions. We have rewritten the section of Discussion and incorporated these related studies in the Discussion section on pages 18-22. 5. There are many typos, and the writing quality should be improved Response: The revised manuscript has been checked by professional language editing services. 6. to make data fully available they should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. Response: The original data and relevant supporting information in the present study are available at https://osf.io/zf35p Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258570.r002
18 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Nicola Molinaro, Editor PONE-D-21-12659R1 Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ji, 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. While superficially reading the Manuscript I noticed a couple of typos: - lines 232-233: - A long epoch was "conducted" from 200 ms before the onset - I would write - A long epoch was "computed" from 200 ms before the onset - - line 401: - resulting in a delay the processing of the second - I would write - resulting in a delay "of" the processing of the second - I am wondering if other typos are present and I invite the authors to carefully revise the whole Manuscript before final acceptance. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 02 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 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, Nicola Molinaro, 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. 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.0258570.r003
Revision 2
28 Sep 2021 Author Response Review Comments to the Author 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. While superficially reading the Manuscript I noticed a couple of typos: - lines 232-233: - A long epoch was "conducted" from 200 ms before the onset - I would write - A long epoch was "computed" from 200 ms before the onset - - line 401: - resulting in a delay the processing of the second - I would write - resulting in a delay "of" the processing of the second - I am wondering if other typos are present and I invite the authors to carefully revise the whole Manuscript before final acceptance. Response: Thank you very much for your careful reading. We have double checked the typos and grammar of the manuscript, and the revised parts of the manuscript are highlighted in red. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258570.r004
1 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Marte Otten, Editor Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading PONE-D-21-12659R2 Dear Dr. Ji, 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, Marte Otten, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258570.r005
Formally Accepted
16 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Marte Otten, Editor PONE-D-21-12659R2 Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading Dear Dr. Ji: 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. Marte Otten Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258570.r006

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 .