PONE-D-21-33037Cosmetic makeup enhances facial attractiveness and affective neural responsesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arai,

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 Mar 30 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,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

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. We note that Figures 1 and 3 includes an image of a [patient / participant / in the study].

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual

3.  In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

Although the study topic is enjoyable for both Reviewers, Reviewer#1 raised critical methodological issues that they must solve. First, the authors should connect the lacking Introduction assumptions and the Discussion. Reviewer#1 suggests that statistical analyses of the behavioral data should be re-performed, and authors should also provide a valuable Discussion of facial discrimination. Reviewerr#2 is more optimistic, although it raises several minor points that the authors should address. I am confident that the authors resolve all submitted comments, making them improve the quality of their paper.

[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: 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: 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: The literature is reviewed in a clear and concise manner. However, the aim of the present study is vague. The authors examined whether makeup evokes greater attractiveness-related brain responses when presented with an individual’s own face than when presented with another person’s face (p. 7, line 151). It is unclear whether their assumptions regarding changes in brain responses depend on makeup effects, facial attractiveness, or discrimination between self and others (p. 9, line 184). The authors should clearly explain the relationship between task processes and ERP components.

In Experiment 1, the authors found that participants identified their own faces without makeup faster than they did with makeup. Participants rated their own made-up faces more attractive than without makeup. Previous studies have indicated that people detect attractive faces automatically and keep looking at them (p. 7, line 139). Are the present results consistent with previous findings? In addition, RTs derived from Experiment 2 were faster for participant’s own made-up faces than for their own faces without makeup. Thus, I wonder whether the behavioral results are reliable. It is well known that RT data do not follow a normal distribution. The authors should perform a logarithmic transformation of RT data (or use median RTs) and conduct the statistical analysis again.

Interpretations of results from Experiment 1 are not consistent. The authors stated that when participants viewed their own faces with makeup, larger EPN and LPP waveforms were elicited than when they viewed their own faces without makeup (p. 18, line 400). However, although the amplitude of the LPP component was greater with makeup, the amplitude of the EPN component was greater without makeup (Fig. 2). Do the amplitudes of ERP components reflect differences in facial attractiveness or RTs?

For Experiment 2, why did the authors analyze the P200 component? The Introduction offers no explanation of mental processes based on P200. It is very confusing. If the P200 component is important in recognizing one’s face, it should be analyzed in Experiment 1 as well.

The authors used different EEG setups in Experiments 1 and 2. Locations of electrodes also differed between the two experiments. Thus, the results of Experiment 1 are not directly comparable to those of Experiment 2. The authors should explain the reasons for these different EEG arrangements.

The authors reported significant differences in brain responses between experimental conditions, but the effect size in each case was very small. I am not sure that these results are robust. Are there any criteria regarding the effect size?

My impression is that the manuscript lacks logical connections between the Introduction and the Discussion. First, what is the ecological relevance of distinguishing made-up faces of self from those of others? In daily life, we see other's faces, but we rarely see our own. I think that makeup can change one’s mood (or increase extroversion along with self-confidence). Do such changes in mood affect brain responses? Makeup can also enhance the salience of facial features (luminance, color, contrast, etc.). The authors discuss effects of makeup on facial attractiveness and visual attention, but not the effect of salience on object detection. They should clearly explain how ERP components are associated with mental processes of face recognition.

I cannot read the descriptions in the figures (e.g., Figs 2 and 4) because of low resolution. Please improve the quality of figures.

Reviewer #2: On the whole, this study has strengths that are worth mentioning -- I have a few clarification points that I would like to see, however.

First of all, the literature review is thorough, and the novelty of the research is clear in terms of how it expands on the literature. I appreciated the expansion of the research to focus on reactions to one's own face, to comparing one's own face with another's, and the exploration of whether the results would still occur under implicit conditions. Likewise, having the more realistic notion of makeup that has been self-applied has its benefits, although it also provided some downsides, which I'll expand on below. The description of the methodology used was thorough, and the sample size was sufficient for research of this type, and for the most part, I found the analysis to likewise be complete and comprehensible. The discussion was clear at highlighting the key findings, and was reasonably transparent in terms of methodological challenges (i.e having them apply their own makeup without strict consistency).

There were a few things I would like to see added to the study:

1.) The description of the makeup the participants were told to apply was 'makeup that they would normally wear while going out with their friends on the weekend.' (p. 12, ln. 251-252, also in Study 2 on p. 22, ln 491-492). On page 19, ln. 413, the makeup worn is classified as 'ordinary makeup'. This is not day-to-day wear -- it is makeup explicitly worn only on the weekends for a night out. This, to a certain extent, could help explain some of the results in terms of reaction time, as participants would be more used to seeing their bare faces, or the makeup they may have worn while at work, as opposed to the rarer, dressier makeup they were asked to put on. The researchers should further clarify how the type of makeup could differ from daily wear, and not refer to it as 'ordinary' makeup, as that could be confusing.

2.) While the effect sizes were appropriate to the type of test used, the authors should acknowledge effect size in their discussion of results, making sure to specify not only a significant finding, but clarifying when a result was a large or more modest effect to better contextualize the results -- as well as briefly identifying what is a typical effect size for studies using this methodology.

3.) The authors report all cell means and standard deviations, but in Study 2, there are several main effect tests that are significant; providing the main effect means and standard deviations would be preferable in addition to cell means. (p.27, lns 572, 573, 579, 589 -- or added to Table 2; p. 29 ln 627 and 635; p. 30 ln 644, 651, 652)

**********

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: Hirohito M. Kondo

Reviewer #2: Yes: Caitlin A. J. Powell

[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.

PONE-D-21-33037R1Cosmetic makeup enhances facial attractiveness and affective neural responsesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arai,

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 am very sorry for the long delay. I have found it seriously difficult to find expert reviewers.

However, I think the paper still needs a minor revision at this stage.

Given the long delay, I suggest the authors revise their manuscript by solving the reviewer comments and then submit their last revision for acceptance.

Please accompany the revised manuscript with a detailed letter explaining how you have responded to each of the reviewers' points, and where the changes appear in the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 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,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I am very sorry for the long delay. I have found it seriously difficult to find expert reviewers.

However, I think the paper still needs a minor revision at this stage.

Given the long delay, I suggest the authors revise their manuscript by solving the reviewer comments and then submit their last revision for acceptance.

Please accompany the revised manuscript with a detailed letter explaining how you have responded to each of the reviewers' points, and where the changes appear in the revised manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (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: 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

**********

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: The several descriptions remain difficult to understand. I pointed them out in my previous comments, but the authors did not update their manuscript. For example, in lines 397-399, the authors stated that “Viewing one’s own face with makeup on resulted in larger EPN waveforms than viewing one’s own face without makeup (makeup: M = 2.60 μV, SD = 2.62 μV; no makeup: M = 2.92 μV, SD = 2.44 μV).” What does a larger waveform mean? That statement does not depend on whether the waveform indicates positive or negative deflection. The authors also stated that “Another key finding was that faces with makeup elicited larger EPN and LPP amplitudes regardless of whether the presence of makeup was explicitly relevant to the participant’s task" (lines 781-783). This is misleading. As described above, the amplitude of the EPN component was larger for the non-makeup condition. I found that the EPN component was negatively biased for the makeup condition than for non-makeup condition, whereas the LPP component was positively biased for the makeup condition than for non-makeup condition. The authors should check their statements in all the sections and reword them appropriately.

Technical comment: the authors should enlarge the font size in the figures.

**********

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: Yes: Hirohito M. Kondo

**********

[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.

Cosmetic makeup enhances facial attractiveness and affective neural responses

PONE-D-21-33037R2

Dear Dr. Arai,

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,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

First of all, I am sorry for the long-lasting time required to revise this manuscript. I have had difficulties finding expert reviewers serving for this manuscript and thank the authors for their patience.

I see that the current revised version is quite improved after addressing the insightful reviewer' suggestions. The authors have addressed all the necessary changes following the reviewers’ suggestions. Thus, I think the manuscript can be accepted for publication at this stage.

Reviewers' comments: