Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020

Matthew J. Penn; Christl A. Donnelly

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268511

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 12, 2022
26 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Eugene Demidenko, Editor PONE-D-22-01098Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Penn, 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. I read your paper with interest -- this is a quality paper. However, to expedite the publication of this paper, while I’m working on finding knowledgeable reviewers, I’d like to share with you some my thoughts and comments. 1. Interpretation of OA and VB is arbitrary – they are just factors. Can’t we interpret these quantities as factors contributing to playing home versus guest match? The problem with of your interpretation, although plausible, should be mentioned. 2. I believe that there is even a simple model to derive the teams standing I want to share with you using the average of the score difference for each team. Indeed, let rA denote the standing/rank of team A and dAB denote the difference in score A played against B, that is, if the score was 1:3 we have dAB = -2. The major assumption made is that dAB is proportional to the difference in teams standing, dAB = a(rA – rB) + epsAB where a>0 is the scale parameter and epsAB is the error term with zero mean and constant variance. In fact, we may forget about a and simply rewrite the model as dAB = rA – rB + epsAB. Indeed, after rA derived we can make the transformation (rA – min)/(max-min). The above is a linear model. Assuming that ∑ rA = 0 we arrive at the simple solution rA = ∑BdAB /nA where nA is the number of matches played by team A. This model has advantages: (a) the solution is easy to interpret, (b) unlike your model there is no technical issues such as existence and uniqueness (say, that all teams played against each other – then you PAB = const). (c) This model uses all scores while you use only the total number of scores. Disadvantage is that eps does not have a normal distribution. I believe that the comparison of the linear with the Poisson model to predict standings would be of great interest and it would strengthen your paper. 3. Another probabilistic model for ranking the team is suggested in Demidenko E (2020). Advanced Statistics with Applications in R. New York: Wiley. Some editorial comments: 1. Refer in the introduction to “football/soccer” at least once because many readers are from US. 2. Use “p-value” not “p value.” 3. For presentation purpose I’d derive equation (3). Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 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, Eugene Demidenko, 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.] [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.0268511.r001
Revision 1
4 Feb 2022 Author Response Dear Dr Demidenko, Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We have written below our responses to each of the points raised. Sincerely, on behalf of all the authors Matthew Penn Main Comments 1. Interpretation of OA and VB is arbitrary – they are just factors. Can’t we interpret these quantities as factors contributing to playing home versus guest match? The problem with of your interpretation, although plausible, should be mentioned. We have clarified that OA and VB are independent of which team is playing at home or away. We have provided further justification for our interpretation, while also acknowledging the possibility for different interpretations to be made. 2. I believe that there is even a simple model to derive the teams standing I want to share with you using the average of the score difference for each team. Indeed, let rA denote the standing/rank of team A and dAB denote the difference in score A played against B, that is, if the score was 1:3 we have dAB = -2. The major assumption made is that dAB is proportional to the difference in teams standing, dAB = a(rA – rB) + epsAB where a>0 is the scale parameter and epsAB is the error term with zero mean and constant variance. In fact, we may forget about a and simply rewrite the model as dAB = rA – rB + epsAB. Indeed, after rA derived we can make the transformation (rA – min)/(max-min). The above is a linear model. Assuming that ∑ rA = 0 we arrive at the simple solution rA = ∑BdAB /nA where nA is the number of matches played by team A. This model has advantages: (a) the solution is easy to interpret, (b) unlike your model there is no technical issues such as existence and uniqueness (say, that all teams played against each other – then you PAB = const). (c) This model uses all scores while you use only the total number of scores. Disadvantage is that eps does not have a normal distribution. I believe that the comparison of the linear with the Poisson model to predict standings would be of great interest and it would strengthen your paper. We have added in a subsection to compare our model to the linear model described above. We have shown how to derive rankings from our model, and plotted them against the rankings from the linear model in our new Figure 12. We have also calculated the mean error (in goal difference) between the predictions from each model and the actual results of Euro 2020. We have highlighted evidence that the models are similar, but that the extra information used by the Poisson model helps it to give better predictions. 3. Another probabilistic model for ranking the team is suggested in Demidenko E (2020). Advanced Statistics with Applications in R. New York: Wiley. We have added this as a reference, referring to it in the introduction. Editorial Comments 1. Refer in the introduction to “football/soccer” at least once because many readers are from US. We have added in a reference to soccer in the introduction. 2. Use “p-value” not “p value.” We have changed this. 3. For presentation purpose I’d derive equation (3). We have added the derivation of Equation 3 into the main manuscript. We have hence removed it from the supplementary material file S1. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response To Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268511.r002
2 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Eugene Demidenko, Editor PONE-D-22-01098R1Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Penn, 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. Attached are comments from a Reviewer. I think they are constructive and can be easily addressed. Looking forward to seeing a revised version. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 16 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, Eugene Demidenko, 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. Reviewer's comment: 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: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: Review of: [Manuscript PONE-D-22-01098R1 Title: Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020 Authors: Matthew J. Penn, Christl A. Donnelly] I have read the paper with interest. The manuscript topic is of interest for “PLOS ONE”. The authors offer a work that potentially can improve our knowledge about the topic of interest. I suggest that the authors consider a revision of their work along the following suggestions and questions. Suggestions and Questions: 1- It is recommended to start the abstract with general information about the topic. 2- It is suggested to discuss more about the findings of this study in the abstract. 3- It is recommended to mention about the applications of this study at the end of abstract: The findings of this study can help for better understanding of … 4- I strongly recommend the authors to add one paragraph discussing the difference between their work and the previously performed studies in literature. In other words, what is the novelty of this work? I offer the authors to revise the abstract and introduction in order to incorporate the novelty of their work. This change motivates the readers of “PLOS ONE” to study this work with interest. 5- It is suggested to add a figure in Section 1, which presents the general sketch of the problem under study. 6- It is recommended to include a paragraph at the end of introduction to present the steps of the work like: First, the methods are presented. Then,… 7- What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic. 8- What are the limitations of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic. 9- The boxes around the legends in all the plots should be removed. 10- “Where” should be replaced by “where” for definition of parameters or variables after each equation. 11- It is recommended to add minor ticks (or intervals) on horizontal and vertical axis of all the plots. 12- The title for last section should be changed to “Summary and Conclusions”. 13- It is recommended to show the main remarks of this study in terms of bullets in last section (Summary and Conclusions). 14- It is suggested to add a nomenclature (including alphabetic letters, Greek letters, subscripts, and superscripts). 15- It is recommended to keep the main governing equations in the text of manuscript and move the rest of equations to an appendix. ****** 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 [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review-PONE-D-22-01098R1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268511.r003
Revision 2
4 Apr 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewer We have received your comments on our manuscript. We have written below our responses to each of the points raised. Yours faithfully, on behalf of all the authors Matthew Penn Main Comments 1- It is recommended to start the abstract with general information about the topic. We have rewritten the abstract to start with some background information on the double Poisson model. 2- It is suggested to discuss more about the findings of this study in the abstract. We have added in some of the findings of this study into the abstract. 3- It is recommended to mention about the applications of this study at the end of abstract: The findings of this study can help for better understanding of … This has been added to the end of the abstract. 4- I strongly recommend the authors to add one paragraph discussing the difference between their work and the previously performed studies in literature. In other words, what is the novelty of this work? I offer the authors to revise the abstract and introduction in order to incorporate the novelty of their work. This change motivates the readers of “PLOS ONE” to study this work with interest. The previous draft contained a paragraph starting “The main novel contribution to this work is...” We have added in the word “novel” to the second sentence of this paragraph to emphasise that the whole paragraph is concerned with the novelty of the study. We have also highlighted the novelty in the abstract. 5- It is suggested to add a figure in Section 1, which presents the general sketch of the problem under study. We have added in this figure. 6- It is recommended to include a paragraph at the end of introduction to present the steps of the work like: First, the methods are presented. Then,… This paragraph has been added into the introduction. 7- What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic. A paragraph discussing the advantages and disadvantages has been added. 8- What are the limitations of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic. The limitations are highlighted in the new paragraph discussing the advantages and disadvantages. 9- The boxes around the legends in all the plots should be removed. The boxes around legends have been removed. 10- “Where” should be replaced by “where” for definition of parameters or variables after each equation. The authors performed a case sensitive search in the main text, and all supplementary material for the word “Where” and did not find any occurrences. However, they are happy to change any of these that have been missed. 11- It is recommended to add minor ticks (or intervals) on horizontal and vertical axis of all the plots. These have been added to all of the plots. 12- The title for last section should be changed to “Summary and Conclusions”. The title for the final section has been changed. 13- It is recommended to show the main remarks of this study in terms of bullets in last section (Summary and Conclusions). The previous conclusion has been moved to a section entitled “Discussion”. The section “Summary and Conclusions” now contains bullets. 14- It is suggested to add a nomenclature (including alphabetic letters, Greek letters, subscripts, and superscripts). A nomenclature has been added. 15- It is recommended to keep the main governing equations in the text of manuscript and move the rest of equations to an appendix. The previous review of this manuscript (by the editor, Eugene Demidenko) requested that the equations in the derivation were placed in the main text. The authors therefore query this comment to the editor - the derivation has been currently left in the main text but can be moved if required. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268511.r004
7 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Eugene Demidenko, Editor PONE-D-22-01098R2Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Penn, 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 paper can be accepted after some minor changes that address the comments of the Reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 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, Eugene Demidenko, 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.] [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.0268511.r005
Revision 3
11 Apr 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewer We have received your comments on our manuscript. We have written below our responses to each of the points raised. Yours faithfully, on behalf of all the authors Matthew Penn Main Comments 1- It is recommended to start the abstract with general information about the topic. We have rewritten the abstract to start with some background information on the double Poisson model. 2- It is suggested to discuss more about the findings of this study in the abstract. We have added in some of the findings of this study into the abstract. 3- It is recommended to mention about the applications of this study at the end of abstract: The findings of this study can help for better understanding of … This has been added to the end of the abstract. 4- I strongly recommend the authors to add one paragraph discussing the difference between their work and the previously performed studies in literature. In other words, what is the novelty of this work? I offer the authors to revise the abstract and introduction in order to incorporate the novelty of their work. This change motivates the readers of “PLOS ONE” to study this work with interest. The previous draft contained a paragraph starting “The main novel contribution to this work is...” We have added in the word “novel” to the second sentence of this paragraph to emphasise that the whole paragraph is concerned with the novelty of the study. We have also highlighted the novelty in the abstract. 5- It is suggested to add a figure in Section 1, which presents the general sketch of the problem under study. We have added in this figure. 6- It is recommended to include a paragraph at the end of introduction to present the steps of the work like: First, the methods are presented. Then,… This paragraph has been added into the introduction. 7- What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic. A paragraph discussing the advantages and disadvantages has been added. 8- What are the limitations of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic. The limitations are highlighted in the new paragraph discussing the advantages and disadvantages. 9- The boxes around the legends in all the plots should be removed. The boxes around legends have been removed. 10- “Where” should be replaced by “where” for definition of parameters or variables after each equation. The authors performed a case sensitive search in the main text, and all supplementary material for the word “Where” and did not find any occurrences. However, they are happy to change any of these that have been missed. 11- It is recommended to add minor ticks (or intervals) on horizontal and vertical axis of all the plots. These have been added to all of the plots. 12- The title for last section should be changed to “Summary and Conclusions”. The title for the final section has been changed. 13- It is recommended to show the main remarks of this study in terms of bullets in last section (Summary and Conclusions). The previous conclusion has been moved to a section entitled “Discussion”. The section “Summary and Conclusions” now contains bullets. 14- It is suggested to add a nomenclature (including alphabetic letters, Greek letters, subscripts, and superscripts). A nomenclature has been added. 15- It is recommended to keep the main governing equations in the text of manuscript and move the rest of equations to an appendix. The previous review of this manuscript (by the editor, Eugene Demidenko) requested that the equations in the derivation were placed in the main text. The authors therefore query this comment to the editor - the derivation has been currently left in the main text but can be moved if required. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268511.r006
4 May 2022 Decision Letter - Eugene Demidenko, Editor Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020 PONE-D-22-01098R3 Dear Dr. Penn, 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, Eugene Demidenko, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268511.r007
Formally Accepted
10 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Eugene Demidenko, Editor PONE-D-22-01098R3 Analysis of a double Poisson model for predicting football results in Euro 2020 Dear Dr. Penn: 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. Eugene Demidenko Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268511.r008

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 .