New data on the validity of the Fazio Laterality Inventory

Wojciech Łukasz Dragan; Andrzej Śliwerski; Monika Folkierska-Żukowska

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262803

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 29, 2021
15 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor PONE-D-21-31396New Data on the Validity of the Fazio Laterality InventoryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dragan, 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 Jan 29 2022 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: https://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, Frantisek Sudzina 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 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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 well-conducted additional validation of the FLI. Strengths include the relatively large sample size and the variety of analyses performed. Minor points to address in the manuscript are as follows: 1. Formatting/stylistic issues. On page 3, like 62, the author's first name is included, and this appears to be the only place in the manuscript formatted in this manner. Page 5 line 95 has the citation formatted incorrectly. On page 7, several quotation marks are ostensibly backwards from how they are typically used. Citation brackets also appear to be missing on page 9, line 174. Formatting of citation, page 19, line 300. There are a few other instances of the citation brackets being missing as well. 2. Although this is a proof at this point, it would have been nice for Table 2 to fit on one page. Obviously this will need reduced going forward. It will be more effective to see all the factor loadings with one glance. 3. Page 20, line 346 - the use of "American" here needs clarified. It is assumed the authors do not mean the USA, given that the FLI has been validated in the USA and Canada. 4. The authors seem to state in the discussion that the different results found in their validation of the FLI have to do with method variance. Although they state that further testing is necessary, it seems as though their phrasing downplays the potential differences found between neurologically normal populations and likely neurologically atypical populations. It may be worth discussing both sides of this issue further, since this is potentially a major issue given the populations in which neuroimaging studies are usually conducted. Relatively larger issues which need to be addressed include: 1. It was not made clear in the manuscript if the participants were asked their self-perceived handedness. If so, this should be explicitly stated and also these results included in Table 1. If not, this methodological choice should be addressed. 2. Related to the above, is there data available on the typical rates of right and left handedness in a Polish population generally? The EHI LQs in table 1 seem very low, and this raises the question of the cultural acceptance of sinistrality or other cultural factors in these results. 3. It seems the authors may need to comment on the amount of missing data as presented on page 8 in regards to why this may have happened. 4. On page 15, it is mentioned that there is an "overwhelming number of right-handed people in the group of participants." Although this is surely true from the FLI and EHI values, what is the basis for this? Is it based on self-report or cut scores for the instruments? If so, what cuts were used? How would participants be classified with one vs. the other instrument? This would all be useful information to present. ****** 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 [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.0262803.r001
Revision 1
4 Jan 2022 Author Response Responses to the reviewer's comments We want to thank the Reviewer for taking the time to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us improve the manuscript's quality. 1. Formatting/stylistic issues. On page 3, like 62, the author's first name is included, and this appears to be the only place in the manuscript formatted in this manner. Page 5 line 95 has the citation formatted incorrectly. On page 7, several quotation marks are ostensibly backwards from how they are typically used. Citation brackets also appear to be missing on page 9, line 174. Formatting of citation, page 19, line 300. There are a few other instances of the citation brackets being missing as well. Thank you for this valuable comment. We included all the suggested corrections. 2. Although this is a proof at this point, it would have been nice for Table 2 to fit on one page. Obviously, this will need reduced going forward. It will be more effective to see all the factor loadings with one glance. We changed the format of Table 2 according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. 3. Page 20, line 346 - the use of "American" here needs clarified. It is assumed the authors do not mean the USA, given that the FLI has been validated in the USA and Canada. We clarified this statement by adding the "North" to "American." 4. The authors seem to state in the discussion that the different results found in their validation of the FLI have to do with method variance. Although they state that further testing is necessary, it seems as though their phrasing downplays the potential differences found between neurologically normal populations and likely neurologically atypical populations. It may be worth discussing both sides of this issue further, since this is potentially a major issue given the populations in which neuroimaging studies are usually conducted. We changed the discussion according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. 5. It was not made clear in the manuscript if the participants were asked their self-perceived handedness. If so, this should be explicitly stated and also these results included in Table 1. If not, this methodological choice should be addressed. Accidentally we omitted this information in the previous version of the manuscript. However, it was included in Table 1. In addition, a short explanation of how this data was gathered was added in the Method section. 6. Related to the above, is there data available on the typical rates of right and left handedness in a Polish population generally? The EHI LQs in table 1 seem very low, and this raises the question of the cultural acceptance of sinistrality or other cultural factors in these results. Unfortunately, there is no available normative data on handedness in a general Polish population. 7. It seems the authors may need to comment on the amount of missing data as presented on page 8 in regards to why this may have happened. Such an amount of missing data was probably a consequence of the online format of the survey (no force response has been applied). Since the same data was used to estimate the factor structure and IRT analysis, we decided to remove all cases with at least one non-response (the software used for the IRT required no missing data). Due to the technical nature of this explanation, we decided not to include it in the discussion. 8. On page 15, it is mentioned that there is an "overwhelming number of right-handed people in the group of participants." Although this is surely true from the FLI and EHI values, what is the basis for this? Is it based on self-report or cut scores for the instruments? If so, what cuts were used? How would participants be classified with one vs. the other instrument? This would all be useful information to present. This observation was based on the self-report, which, as mentioned above, was added to Table 1. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262803.r002
6 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor New Data on the Validity of the Fazio Laterality Inventory PONE-D-21-31396R1 Dear Dr. Dragan, 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, Frantisek Sudzina Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262803.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor PONE-D-21-31396R1 New Data on the Validity of the Fazio Laterality Inventory Dear Dr. Dragan: 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. Frantisek Sudzina Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262803.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 .