Perceptions of professional soccer coaches, support staff and players toward virtual reality and the factors that modify their intention to use it

Ben Greenhough; Steve Barrett; Chris Towlson; Grant Abt

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261378

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 8, 2021
19 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Greg Wood, Editor PONE-D-21-22184 Perceptions of professional soccer coaches and players toward virtual reality and the factors that modify their intention to use it. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Greenhough, 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. You will see that both reviewers are complimentary about your work but both offer suggestions relating to minor revisions in order to help strengthen your manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. 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, Greg Wood, PhD 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 include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information “S2 Text. Surveys’ definition of virtual reality” which you refer to in your text on page 24. 4. 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: This is a nice study that describes the intention to use VR in high performance sport. To begin, I was sceptical believing that this type of study is necessary, being whether the content of this manuscript truly benefits/impacts the wider community in high performance sport and the opinions of VR. During the reading of the manuscript, I kept an open mind and tried not to bring my own beliefs of VR into my review. I believe that overall, it does contribute (albeit unfortunately not greatly in my opinion) to progressing the research area of VR. The writing was of great quality, the story/layout was very clear, and I believe that it is better to be published in an open access journal than not to be published at all– especially given the time point we are in within the Gartner Hype Cycle which I was not aware of beforehand but can completely relate to this in high performance sport environments. After reading the manuscript over a few times, I feel that my comments are very generic guidelines that specific sentences or paragraphs. The authors are welcome to adjust their manuscript accordingly, or disagree with my comments too. As long as they are justified from the authors’ perspective. 1. The authors appear to be targeting this manuscript to staff in high-performance, but from my experience unfortunately I can imagine that they will most likely lose attention throughout reading the text. I understand that many of the data is necessary with the use of such questionnaire, but 6 tables, 5 figures and 6 supplementary files was a bit overwhelming. Are all these necessary including all of the text describing the findings too? It just seems that the manuscript only states facts, whereas there is not so much "why" attached to a lot of the "what". 2. This comment is once more related to the target audience of this manuscript. Is it possible that with the word count potentially shortened for the next draft that the authors could include a practical application/recommendations paragraph for practitioners who want to implement/improve adoption rate for VR into their club? For example, the authors could explain that focusing on the social influences of VR to get teams to use it is not the right approach (whereas the media department might favour this), but instead constructing a clear argument of VR for stakeholders in the club i) to support the physios training injured players with supported by recent research (Gokeler), ii) to support performance analysis department for tactical analysis and iii) collaborations with universities with VR technology that would loan out headsets to clubs in exchange for data – thereby reducing the cost barrier which directly solves the largest implementation barrier of VR. 3. One small thing: The title is slightly misrepresenting of the population of the sample. I wouldn’t use coaches and players, as in the manuscript there are many other support staff that are not coaches. I believe you’ve referred to them collectively as “practitioners” in L143. Reviewer #2: This study examined attitudes towards the use of virtual reality in professional football. It is interesting and timely. I enjoyed reading this manuscript and have only minor comments. The ethics statement mentions Declaration of Helsinki, but the latest version of this (item 35 in https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/) requires preregistration. As far as I can tell, this was not done by the authors, so they should at least mention which version of the Declaration their study adhered to (or remove this altogether). (Also on line 140-141.) Abstract could be more informative about the findings and its implications. Introduction: very clear motivation for the study – nothing to comment, really. Line 165-167: Do you mean screen-based VR (e.g., CAVE-like set-ups) was not included? That needs to be made explicit throughout. Line 189: a visual representation of the model would make sense for the less informed readers. Power calculation/interpretation of p-values: was the amount of effects included in the model considered? Any regression based model with multiple predictor variables is influenced by issues of multiple comparison just as e.g., when performing multiple t-tests. Using alpha = 0.05 for individual predictor variables thus increases the chance of erroneously including these in the model (Type 1 errors). I would expect some treatment of this issue in the paper. See e.g., http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.490.7640&rep=rep1&type=pdf Line 230: how was this non-normality dealt with? Was normality not an assumption of the statistical model? This is important information since it could affect the validity of the statistical results/inferences. Line 260: ‘strong theoretical support’ sounds somewhat vague. The paper makes a distinction between potential cognitive, mental, tactical, physical, and technical benefits of VR. I think this needs to be defined very clearly in the Introduction. I would argue that a potential benefit (sensorimotor/visuomotor control, or something of this nature) is not perfectly captured by any of these terms, although I suspect the authors might capture this under ‘cognitive’ (which I think is suboptimal). Virtual reality could have training benefits in terms of an improved link between perception and action (e.g., better ability to link visual information about the kicker’s kinematics and ball flight in free kick or penalty scenarios to actions through VR training using a large database of kick kinematics). Some readers may prefer a visual representation of the SEM – there are standardized ways to present these. In general, the current presentation of the model results is hard to follow (in terms of the interpretation/meaning of the results). The discussion refers to the names of the factors in the model (‘performance expectancy’, ‘social influence’ etc), which sometimes affects readability. I would suggest writing out these in terms of the actual meaning to help the reader along. For example “Our study allows us to conclude that performance expectancy is the largest contributor towards likeliness to use VR in professional soccer.” -> “Our study allows us to conclude that likeliness to use VR in professional soccer mostly depends on expectations concerning performance benefits of using VR.” Signed Joost Dessing ****** 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: Adam Beavan Reviewer #2: Yes:** Joost Dessing [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.0261378.r001
Revision 1
23 Oct 2021 Author Response 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Edits have been made to the manuscript to meet the PLOS ONE style requirements as documented in the links above. 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Both surveys for coaches/support staff and players have been included in the supporting information as PDF files. 3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information “S2 Text. Surveys’ definition of virtual reality” which you refer to in your text on page 24. I have subsequently removed “S2 Text. Survey definition of virtual reality” based on the comments I made back to reviewer 1 (see below). 4. 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. Reference list has been checked to ensure it is complete and correct. One new reference has been added (reference 30) to answer reviewer 2 comment. Reference has been included below Reviewer comments 1 After reading the manuscript over a few times, I feel that my comments are very generic guidelines that specific sentences or paragraphs. The authors are welcome to adjust their manuscript accordingly, or disagree with my comments too. As long as they are justified from the authors’ perspective. 1. The authors appear to be targeting this manuscript to staff in high-performance, but from my experience unfortunately I can imagine that they will most likely lose attention throughout reading the text. I understand that many of the data is necessary with the use of such questionnaire, but 6 tables, 5 figures and 6 supplementary files was a bit overwhelming. Are all these necessary including all of the text describing the findings too? It just seems that the manuscript only states facts, whereas there is not so much "why" attached to a lot of the "what". We do agree with the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript is lengthy, with a lot of figures and tables. That said, this comment conflicts with reviewer 2’s comments, where they suggest adding two more figures below (diagrams of the SEM). As such, we have removed some supplementary information (S2, S3 and S4) as they are captured in the surveys (S5 and S5). We have removed the demographic text (original text lines 290-294) which is already captured in table 2. Table 3 has been moved to the supplementary materials (as its use in the manuscript is limited). We have also condensed the text between lines 311 – 364 (original text) to just a few of the keys findings, as this text is a repeat of what is shown in each figure. We have just added one of the SEM models (picture included for your reference at bottom of this file) that reviewer two has suggested. 2. This comment is once more related to the target audience of this manuscript. Is it possible that with the word count potentially shortened for the next draft that the authors could include a practical application/recommendations paragraph for practitioners who want to implement/improve adoption rate for VR into their club? For example, the authors could explain that focusing on the social influences of VR to get teams to use it is not the right approach (whereas the media department might favour this), but instead constructing a clear argument of VR for stakeholders in the club i) to support the physios training injured players with supported by recent research (Gokeler), ii) to support performance analysis department for tactical analysis and iii) collaborations with universities with VR technology that would loan out headsets to clubs in exchange for data – thereby reducing the cost barrier which directly solves the largest implementation barrier of VR. We have included a practical applications paragraph after the conclusions, which does help to summarise some of the take-home messages of the manuscript. Thank you for the suggestion. 3. One small thing: The title is slightly misrepresenting of the population of the sample. I wouldn’t use coaches and players, as in the manuscript there are many other support staff that are not coaches. I believe you’ve referred to them collectively as “practitioners” in L143. We have included ‘support staff’ in the title to represent a large proportion of the sample that are not coaches. We then refer to them as practitioners in the methods and then throughout the manuscript to allow for better reading. Reviewer 2 comments The ethics statement mentions Declaration of Helsinki, but the latest version of this (item 35 in https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/) requires preregistration. As far as I can tell, this was not done by the authors, so they should at least mention which version of the Declaration their study adhered to (or remove this altogether). (Also on line 140-141.) Thank you for providing this information. We weren’t aware of the need to preregister the study to include the Declaration of Helsinki. This study is not preregistered and so we have removed this part of the ethics statement. Abstract could be more informative about the findings and its implications. We feel that the abstract adequately conveys the aim, method, results summary, and main implications. However, we have made some minor adjustments to aid clarity. Introduction: very clear motivation for the study – nothing to comment, really. Thank you Line 165-167: Do you mean screen-based VR (e.g., CAVE-like set-ups) was not included? That needs to be made explicit throughout. Yes, CAVE-like set ups were not included as part of our definition of VR. We have included a sentence on line 186 to make this explicit, along with a reference for readers to learn more about CAVE set ups. Line 189: a visual representation of the model would make sense for the less informed readers. We have included a visual representation of the model in Figure 6 (line 485). Power calculation/interpretation of p-values: was the amount of effects included in the model considered? Any regression based model with multiple predictor variables is influenced by issues of multiple comparison just as e.g., when performing multiple t-tests. Using alpha = 0.05 for individual predictor variables thus increases the chance of erroneously including these in the model (Type 1 errors). I would expect some treatment of this issue in the paper. See e.g., http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.490.7640&rep=rep1&type=pdf As outlined by Henseler et al (2014) the bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa) bootstrapping method as implemented in SmartPLS maintains the type 1 error rate at 5%. We have added that clarification to line 275-278. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928 Line 230: how was this non-normality dealt with? Was normality not an assumption of the statistical model? This is important information since it could affect the validity of the statistical results/inferences. Normality is not an assumption with PLS-SEM. We have included a sentence and reference within the revised manuscript (line 251). Line 260: ‘strong theoretical support’ sounds somewhat vague. We have edited this sentence from “required strong theoretical support for its inclusion in the formative construct model” to required (1) a rationale for its inclusion in the formative construct model through either anecdotal or empirical evidence [29], and (2) removing the indicator variable doesn’t change the conceptual meaning of the construct [30] (lines 286-288). The paper makes a distinction between potential cognitive, mental, tactical, physical, and technical benefits of VR. I think this needs to be defined very clearly in the Introduction. I would argue that a potential benefit (sensorimotor/visuomotor control, or something of this nature) is not perfectly captured by any of these terms, although I suspect the authors might capture this under ‘cognitive’ (which I think is suboptimal). Virtual reality could have training benefits in terms of an improved link between perception and action (e.g., better ability to link visual information about the kicker’s kinematics and ball flight in free kick or penalty scenarios to actions through VR training using a large database of kick kinematics). In the Introduction we already refer to perceptual motor-skills (line 116), and studies related to this. We feel that this clearly highlights to the reader that perception/action is a potential benefit of VR. Some readers may prefer a visual representation of the SEM – there are standardized ways to present these. In general, the current presentation of the model results is hard to follow (in terms of the interpretation/meaning of the results). We have now added a figure (Figure 6) to visually represent the SEM model (line 485). The discussion refers to the names of the factors in the model (‘performance expectancy’, ‘social influence’ etc), which sometimes affects readability. I would suggest writing out these in terms of the actual meaning to help the reader along. For example “Our study allows us to conclude that performance expectancy is the largest contributor towards likeliness to use VR in professional soccer.” -> “Our study allows us to conclude that likeliness to use VR in professional soccer mostly depends on expectations concerning performance benefits of using VR.” Thank you for that suggestion. We have made edits to the discussion/conclusion to improve the readability. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261378.r002
1 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Greg Wood, Editor Perceptions of professional soccer coaches, support staff and players toward virtual reality and the factors that modify their intention to use it. PONE-D-21-22184R1 Dear Dr. Greenhough, 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, Greg Wood, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear authors of this manuscript, thank you for replying to the manuscript. I have decided to accept the manuscript on the basis that it may benefit practitioners in the wider community and push the use of VR further in sporting organisations being an open access journal. A few recommendations about addressing the reviewer comments: There is no need to show in so much detail what changes were made. For example, keeping all of the 'track changes' comments on just creates a bit of mess for us reviewers to sift through. I recommend deleting these formatting comments made before resubmitting the revisions for next time. For example, see Figure 6 with all of the font/bold/italic comments that aren't necessary to keep in a review. Also, when you delete small words throughout the manuscript, you can "accept" them on track changes to make them disappear, while keeping the new word in still in red font. For example, see line 244-245, it's unnecessarily messy to read. Another nitpicking comment would be the less than adequate responses to the reviewer comments. For example, I feel Reviewer 2 made a good point about: "The paper makes a distinction between potential cognitive, mental, tactical, physical, and technical benefits of VR. I think this needs to be defined very clearly in the Introduction." But the response was rather underwhelming. Authors are welcome to defend what they have written and disagree with the reviewer, but this has to be better justified. Simply putting that "We feel that this clearly highlights to the reader that perception/action is a potential benefit of VR" does not adequately address that reviewer feels that it doesn't. More effort should be made to better support why the reviewer may have not seen eye-to-eye with the authors, and try and guide them in a more effortful reply to overcome the differences in opinions. Reviewer #2: Apologies for the lateness of the review. I have been stomped with marking. I am happy/satisfied with the changes and have nothing more to add, other than to suggest doing a quick check for grammar and spelling - I noticed a few mistakes. ****** 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: Yes:** Joost Dessing https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261378.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Greg Wood, Editor PONE-D-21-22184R1 Perceptions of professional soccer coaches, support staff and players toward virtual reality and the factors that modify their intention to use it. Dear Dr. Greenhough: 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. Greg Wood Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261378.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .