https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3500-9182
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 9, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-35671Winning and losing in online gambling: Effects on within-session chasingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, 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. Thank you for your patience, I had issues to secure enough reviewers. I could receive reviews of the manuscript and read the manuscript before reading the reviews. I share reviewers opinions and I have additional comments. I would appreciate if the authors could address all the reviewers' comments and mine : On the overall, the introduction and discussion are well written, but the material and statistical analysis need to be reworked. That’s one of the main issues of this article. The methods and statistical analysis seem to have been correctly done but the way it is explained is far too complex. In addition, the discussion lacks perspective and there is no clear message regarding the results of this study under the scope of the current literature. Introduction:
Material and methods:
Measures:
Statistical analysis:
Results
Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Gaëtan Merlhiot 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: We thank Olivier Massiot and Florian Merchie from Gaming1 for their invaluable 554 assistance with the current project. This work was supported by an ERC Consolidator 555 grant (European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant 556 agreement No 769595) and Methusalem Project 01M00221 (Ghent University) awarded 557 to Frederick Verbruggen. Xavier No¨el is supported by the Fonds de la Recherche 558 Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS), Belgium Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: This work was supported by an ERC Consolidator grant (European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement No 769595; https://erc.europa.eu/) and Methusalem Project 01M00221 (Ghent University; https://www.ugent.be/en/research/funding/bof/methusalem) awarded to Frederick Verbruggen. Xavier Noël is supported by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS; https://www.frs-fnrs.be/en/), Belgium and research funding from BAGO (Belgian Association of Gaming Operators; https://bago.be/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: XN received research funding from BAGO (Belgian Association of Gaming Operators) of which Gaming1 is affiliated. No honorarium was received. There was no editorial direction or censorship from Gaming1. ZC, RD, and FV declare that no competing interests exist. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. 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. [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: 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: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I have reviewed this manuscript previously – and positively – for a different journal, and I would like to say what a pleasant surprise it is to see that most of my previous concerns have been addressed in this new submission. This is an unusual and sophisticated piece of research using naturalistic gambling data from a specific online gambling game (‘Mystery Arena’) in a large sample (over 2500 gamblers making over 10 million bets). The paper provides a detailed behavioural analysis of ‘loss chasing’, a key feature of problematic gambling. An important contribution is the description of 3 distinct expressions of loss chasing: ‘when to stop’ (linked to persistence), the amount bet, and the speed of play. They compare these variables between winning and losing gambles, and between groups classified by the gambling operator as higher or lower risk, using their own (proprietary) algorithm. The indicators used by the gambling operator are shown in the Supp material, and while this classification is a little opaque (given the proprietary aspect), there is certainly useful information in these analyses, and I thought the authors handled its (limited) validity very appropriately. The groups differ primarily on the stopping variable (although not in the conventional ‘loss’ chasing direction) and on the speed of play variable. As with much research, a key strength is also a key weakness: the authors focus on Mystery Arena as one specific gambling product, because chasing may be expressed differently on different kinds of gambling (e.g. slot machine gamblers may persist whereas sports bettors may escalate their stake size). The authors also note that it is better suited to the speed of play analysis that a conventional slots game. I fully agree on both accounts, but I might add as a limitation that it seems a slightly unorthodox game. The authors refer on pg 16 that it is ‘chance based’ and compare on pg 4 to a ‘conventional slot machine’. I would say that the behavioural requirements per bet (‘skill’, in a colloquial sense) are greater than a slot machine, and in the manipulation checks, the high involvement do seem to win more than the low involvement groups. To what extent do the motor requirements of the game actually afford experienced players control over the return to player? Could the authors add a clear statement (perhaps in the task methods) as to where this game falls on the skill /chance continuum? Later on in the manuscript, they also refer to the game as a “gamble” e.g. Discussion line 1. I would suggest term ‘gambling product’. Of the 3 definitions of chasing, I feel the ‘when to stop’ analysis is the most challenging; for the change in stake and speed of play analyses, I feel there would be much agreement among researchers about how to operationalize those variables. For ‘when to stop’, the authors approach this in an interesting way, by looking at the probability of winning for that player’s overall ‘session’, and the pwin on their last trial (i.e. before they stop). As p(win-end) is less than p(win-overall), they conclude that players stop when they are losing, i.e. the opposite of loss ‘chasing’. This is the first paper that I have seen operationalize chasing in this way, and it’s an interesting way of simplifying a very complex variable. At the same time, it loses some of the dynamics of chasing, by ignoring the length of the session, and it doesn’t seem to adequately orthogonalize the responses to winning and losing. For example, the authors acknowledge that their effect (the low pwin-end) could reflect stopping after a losing streak, or bigger wins early in the session, and/or exhausting funds. The secondary analysis excluding breaks over 10 minutes does not really shed any light on these ambiguities. Overall, I think the authors could stick with this analysis, but I would encourage them to note that there are other ways to operationalize this variable, e.g. the logistic regression by Leino. Minor P2 please use ‘person first language’ i.e. people with gambling problems, not ‘problem gamblers’ Pg 6 line 218 – 230. Rather than endorsing or rejecting the terminology from the gambling operator (‘pathological addictive gambler’ etc), I think this section could be shortened just by introducing the five levels and the binarization. Table 1 please add units to the parameters, e.g. is the mean and median win in Euros? Not a huge problem but printed in black and white, the two lines in Fig 3 and elsewhere are indistinguishable. Reviewer #2: In this manuscript the authors study the phenomenon of “loss chasing” in gambling data from a large dataset obtained from an online gambling company. The experimental setting describe an agent engaged with a repeated decision-making task, where in each trial the agent may choose to continue or halt participation in a gamble that may result a win or a loss. If the agent decides to continue gambling, they also choose whether to change the previous gambled amount (the “stake”). In this framework, loss chasing is the tendency to increase the stakes and probability of choosing to continue gambling specifically in trials that follow losses. In terms of the probability to continue gambling, the authors identify the opposite of loss chasing with an increased likelihood to stop gambling after losing compared to after winning (Fig 3.a). In changing gambled stakes, participants were more likely to change their stake after a loss compared to a win. However, stake change after loss and win were both very rare (2% and 1% to change stake respectively), and the amount of stake changing after loss was centered around zero (Fig 3.b). In testing reaction times, the authors found that participants made quicker decisions following a loss compared to wins. Across these behavioral features, the authors compare the behavior of light and heavy gamblers. The manuscript seems methodologically sound. Given the importance of better understanding gambling behavior, and the limitation in studying such behavior in the lab setting, the extensive ecological dataset analyzed here is valuable in unveiling the underlying mechanisms of gambling in its common and pathological forms. My main concern in reviewing the manuscript is a lack of clear message. Having studied the data, what new insights did we gain about gambling behavior? Does the evidence support the notion of loss chasing or does it not? What do the findings suggest on the decision-making mechanisms of gamblers? What do they imply to the vulnerability of gamblers to specific types of games? How would these vulnerabilities be expressed in different types of gambling games? How could the novel understanding from the present study be utilized for the design of interventions in gambling disorders? It is not necessary to address all these questions. Rather, a better distilling of a main message and its implications in some broader context could strengthen the manuscript and its impact, and make it easier to follow. Minor refinements or a reframing of the introduction, and some expansion of the discussion may accomplish this goal. Major comments ------------------- * The main effect of loss chasing is implicated in the tendency to chase, namely continue gambling (possibly with greater stakes), after a loss. As the authors suggest, comparing the groups of high- and low-involvement gamblers should consider each group’s winning base-rate, which is higher for the high-involvement groups. This is equivalent to the comparison of two geometrical distributions with a different p (“The probability distribution of the number X of Bernoulli [with probability p] trials needed to get one success” [Wikipedia]). The question of whether participants engage in loss chasing is equivalent to asking what is the probability, given the data, that participants do not in fact have a fixed probability p for stopping, but that p is conditioned on the outcome of the previous trial. Figure 3.a greatly demonstrate this effect. Still, because it was unintuitive for me to mentally compare two geometrical distributions with different p’s, it was difficult for me to appreciate the magnitude of this effect in light of a null model which assumes that participants chose to stop gambling regardless of the last outcome. One way to help the reader could be to simulate the null model and position the present data within this simulation. One way to approach this is to simulate a vector of wins and losses according to the empirical distribution of probabilities to win or lose in the studied game. With this simulated vector of wins and losses, consider the probabilities pStop_loss^high, pStop_win^high, pStop_loss^low, pStop_win^low as the simulated probability to stop after a loss or a win in the high and low involvement groups. A null model would assume that pStop_win=pStop_loss= the empirical probability to stop. The distribution of probability of to stop for each of the groups may serve as the null hypothesis which by comparison would allow to appreciate the current data. After simulating this null hypothesis, subsequent simulations may push pStop_win and pStop_loss gradually apart (pStop_loss-pStop_win=0.01, 0.02,…). The resulting sequence of distributions (per each [pStop_loss-pStop_win] difference) may allow the estimation of: a. what is the most probable p_win and p_loss given the data, b. how likely it is that they are different within each group and c. between groups. Minor comments ------------------- * The introduction is somewhat repetitive and could be edited to be shorter and more concise. In general, I could easily understand the text, but the manuscript could benefit from further editing and proofreading. * It might not be my place to comment on this, but it stood out - Given that one of the perspectives of the manuscript is gambling disorder, it is slightly odd that the first sentence of the introduction frame gambling as a recreational activity that people engage with for pleasure and fun (in the same way that a paper on endangered species may choose to refrain from framing sports hunting as a recreational activity that people engage with for pleasure; even if evidently both claims are true). * “The influential pathways model proposed three distinct pathways from initial 8 gambling exposure to problem gambling [5] While different psychological and biological 9 processes are involved in the distinct pathways, all three …” It is not clear to the reader who is unfamiliar with the pathway model that problem gambling is one type of a pathway. More broadly, if the three different paths are of interest (it seems they are), it would assist the reader if they would be clearly defined here. * line 14: “It is also one of the only signs of disordered gambling that can be directly captured in gambling behavior… The decision to continue gambling despite substantial financial losses is arguably the 38 most prototypical behavioral manifestation of loss-chasing” It is not essentials to your claims, but the reader remains wondering – why is this true? Is this a clinical, mechanistic, or other type of argument? * Figure 1 has no caption, and I think a caption would assist the reader. * Figure 1 shows the conversion between points and prizes which for most of the table has a conversion factor of 50 (100 points equal a prize of 20.0), but for the higher amounts of 600 and 1000 the conversions rate changes. I couldn’t understand if this is on purpose and of importance (it may be addressed in the text and I just missed it). * It would assist the understanding of the game if several game-strategies could be explained or demonstrated. It seems there are a few degrees of freedom to participants of the game – where to place the columns, when to stop. Is the game based purely on luck (e.g. like a roulette) or does it have some elements of competency (like black jack)? Namely, could the game be played better by a competent player? * Also, it wasn’t completely clear how are the cost of participating in a game calculated – are they determined per new draw of a dice-column? If so, could the stakes be modified between draws of dices? Does it mean that costs increased with each decision to draw a new column? Or, was participation cost a single amount set prior to a session? If so, why would it be beneficial to stop before the end of a session (before filling all the columns)? * A related question is how did the game itself operate – were dices randomly drawn at each round with uniform distribution? Or by a different distribution? Was the game reactive (changed dice allocation based on the user choices)? * This is a matter of taste: Figures 2 displays the distribution of age and gender across the two groups. This figure does not, of course, hinder understanding, but age and gender statistics seem like the least interesting aspect of the data; visualizing any of the rows of table 1 would be, subjectively for me, more relevant to the substance of the manuscript. * Although it appears elsewhere, it would be helpful to add the number of participants per group to table 1 (e.g., to remind the reader that there were many more “High” participants compared to “low” ones; thus, explaining how come their “Round number” is so much higher). * In table 2, 3, 4 the ANOVA’s df are identical to the main effects and interaction. I guess this is by design, but it is unintuitive (ANOVA tables for factors A and B are often presented with df |A|-1, |B|-1, (|A|-1)(|B|-1)). A comment addressing this would have helped me understanding the tables. * Table 2 – I couldn’t understand the label of the last row. Is it “High- vs. Low-Involvement (Difference[Session End, session Overall])” what is “left” and what is “right” here? * The Introduction is somewhat confusing in that when I approached the results, I was under the impression that the authors are about to demonstrate loss chasing in its most intuitive form – that gamblers tend to chase (continue gambling) after losses. The fact that the data suggests the opposite is important and interesting; but the expectations build up I had given previous sections left my quite confused. The way I read it, I was expecting to find that losses were followed by increased tendency to stop, and then the respective result is just glossed over (“Overall, p(win-end) was significantly lower than p(win-overall) 350 (Fig 3, Panel (A)). Players were thus more likely to stop after losing than after winning”). In short, the way the introduction is written I was expecting to find that participants have greater likelihood to gamble after losses and it took me some time to understand that what the authors find is the opposite. It would have been easier for me to comprehend the text if the introduction would “prepare” me to this result, or be more clear about the fact that this result is surprising; or more explicit that this findings is inconsistent with loss chasing. ********** 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: Luke Clark Reviewer #2: Yes: Ohad Dan, Ph.D. [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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-21-35671R1Winning and losing in online gambling: Effects on within-session chasingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, 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 glad to see that all reviewers’ comments were considered. Please revise the manuscript to address the remaining minor concerns according to reviewers’ suggestions. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 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:
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, Gaëtan Merlhiot 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.] 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: Yes 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: The authors have been very attentive to the referee comments. This is a sophisticated piece of research: they are using high-resolution behavioural gambling data from a real online gambling platform, in a large dataset (10 million bets), looking at three distinct behavioural expressions that each require careful operationalizing. The value of the paper is in the contrast of the three expressions of chasing. They have done an excellent job of conveying their objectives and analysis pipeline as clearly as possible. Reviewer #2: I was very happy to receive the updated manuscript. The revised version substantially improves on its previous. The Introduction is more concise, the Methods easier to follow, and the discussion better explains the multifaceted nature of loss chasing. In particular, I found table 1 to be helpful in shaping the reader’s expectations from the findings. Similarly, the grouping of all findings into a single figure (Fig. 3) is helpful. I thank the authors for the comprehensive point-by-point responses to my previous comments. I have only minor comments: 1. Line 153 - “Note that players could also start a new round before the ’PLAY AGAIN’ message appeared” – I wasn’t sure what to make of this comment. If I understand correctly, games that concluded in a win were followed by a pleasant animation that participants may have chosen to savor. Games that were concluded by a loss were not. The comparison of timing between [win, something nice, continue?] and [lose, continue?] suggests then that the choice to continue to an additional game would be – by the construction of the game – quicker after losses, as indeed indicated by the results (e.g., Fig 3.D). Is this comment offered as a limitation to the finding of quicker RT after a loss? If so, it can potentially be framed as such more explicitly. Also, a comparison of the animation time and the difference between wins and losses reaction time may shed light on the role of the animation in generating this effect (if the animation is 1 second and the mean difference between wins and losses RT is 5 seconds then the effects of the animation are potentially of lesser concern). Alternatively, does this comment just explains the actual structure of the game and has no relation to RT? 2. I do not understand participants inclusion criterion. Line (236): “players needed to have at least 5 wins and 5 losses in the data”, line (255) “players again needed to have at least 5 rounds following a win and 5 rounds following a loss” – the ‘again’ seems to imply this is the same criterion but I’m not sure that it is: a player may have a single loss followed by 6 wins, satisfying the second condition but not the first. 3. Fig 3.a axis labels – The use of relative likelihoods of ending a session is well explained. However, I don’t know “relative likelihood” as a standard term. Due to the importance of the panel, and the possibly not so intuitive units of that panel, it would have been easier for me if “relative likelihood” was also described in the figure caption. Something like “relative likelihoods are the conditional stopping probabilities given a win or a loss, normalized per-participant by the overall probability to stop, e.g. for losses P(stop|loss)/P(stop-overall)”. ********** 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: Luke Clark Reviewer #2: Yes: Ohad Dan ********** [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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Winning and losing in online gambling: Effects on within-session chasing PONE-D-21-35671R2 Dear Dr. Chen, 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, Gaëtan Merlhiot Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-35671R2 Winning and losing in online gambling: Effects on within-session chasing Dear Dr. Chen: 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. Gaëtan Merlhiot Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .