PONE-D-22-03742IN WAZE WE TRUST? GPS-BASED NAVIGATION APPLICATION USERS’ BEHAVIOR AND PATTERNS OF DEPENDENCYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Galily,

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 May 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,

Prabhat Mittal, 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

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.

4. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include authors Yair Galily and Tal Laor. 

5. 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:

The work reported in the paper possesses rigour and novelty. The authors may however extend the “Review of Literature” section. The authors may collate and compare these studies. In particular, the authors are advised to read and add the following papers:

“Opinion of students on online education during the COVID-19 pandemic”

“Designing Drawing Apps for Children: Artistic and Technological Factors”

“Role of emotion in addictive use of Twitter during COVID-19 imposed lockdown in India”

“Entrepreneurship education and employability skills: the mediating role of e-learning courses”

“Big data and analytics: a data management perspective in public administration”

“Control of COVID-19: A Counter Factual Analysis”

[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: 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: Interesting and relevant article. The methodology is well described. However, it is missing the process of choosing the interviewees. How did the authors reach them? On-line? Personal acquaintance?

In my opinion, the discussion and conclusions section is detailed and concise. However, I would like the authors to emphasize the novelty of the current research. In addition, the authors conclude that users exhibit only several symptoms that resemble dependency. That is, even without dominating the user’s life (salience) or requiring ever-increasing frequency of use (tolerance), users of a functional application may exhibit high levels of mood modification, withdrawal, and relapse. As I found those findings very interesting, I would like to see the practical implications of it explained further.

It is assumed that every research has its own limitations and therefore I advise the authors to add the study limitations to the paper.

Reviewer #2: Very well done overall in the writing and literature review of this manuscript. The authors did a great job of framing the tech addiction to the research on Waze. There might be a benefit in adding the "novelty effect" of using such apps and tech for certain uses. In addition, it would be helpful to enhance the "limitations" portion of this paper to include all of the various permutations of what might have been missed throughout the 50 interviews that were conducted. Additionally it would be interesting to see the impact of new technology on the withdrawal symptoms and how the marketing efforts of app designer may impact the use of the various technologies and how their might be concerted efforts to get users to switch or to entice them with coupons, etc. Thank you for the opportunity to review this work, very timely and relevant.

********** 

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: Prof. Michael J. Leitner, Ph.D.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Simon Pack

[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-22-03742R1IN WAZE WE TRUST? GPS-BASED NAVIGATION APPLICATION USERS’ BEHAVIOR AND PATTERNS OF DEPENDENCYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Galily,

we have received comments from a fourth reviewer for your submission. As per our previous discussions we leave the comments of reviewer 3 to your own discretion. The comments from Reviewer 4 are generally positive and highlight the need for more in depth discussion of the limitations. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 14 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,

Carla Pegoraro

Staff 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):

[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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: All suggested revisions were made. The article is excellent and ready for publication. It is a very interesting and timely article.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The paper lacks the discussion about the aim of the study, the primary objective is not clear, significance and the comparison with the state of the art.

The introduction is quite verbose and does not cover the motivation and the contribution of the work. It needs proper extensions. It should state the motivation of the authors to conduct the present work and the way that it could be assistive to specific applications and systems. Background topics and related approaches are mainly illustrated in the Introduction. However, a better comparison with the author's approach should be made in the discussion or after the discussion section.

One of the limitations is the lack of discussion of the state of the art. The related work needs to be presented in better detail each one of the works addressed describing its aims (research questions specified) and the results collected.

The methodology section should better present the methodology. Currently, it is quite generic and verbose and needs to better present the exact stages of the methodology that it is followed and the functionality of each specific stage of it. Furthermore, you should make the research gap clear: Is it that, no one did before and why this would be interesting? Or is it the methodology? There is a major methodological issue to discuss: the relationship between Weibo input data, and how such data are correlated to the first scenic spot and then some given other spots. After all the discussion - what do we learn from your results? Who can profit from that? How your findings can be compared with findings from other authors. Please make a discussion that should be oriented towards the aims of the study and the gaps in the literature. Please highlight the innovation of the study too. Finally, the final patterns and trends discussed in the conclusion are essentially descriptive, the authors should here make every effort to discuss the social and/or economic reasons behind these patterns. One more important concern is the lack of discussion on the application of the current technique. Moreover, no compression what’s so ever has been made with the state of the art? The conclusion section needs to be re-written to better present the study. Finally, extensive editing of the English language and style required. The grammar needs polishing. Please have the paper proofread again. In the lights of the above-mentioned issues, the manuscript in the current form lack novelty, research contribution, and application. So it needs to be seriously rewritten and proofread

Reviewer #4: General Comments

Minor Revisions

This paper makes a valuable contribution to scholarship on the use of location-based smartphone apps, the use of a popular app like WAZE, and potentially similar apps including both google maps, apple maps, and other navigation or location-based apps. The qualitative interviews are well conducted and structured in ways aligned with prior qualitative research, as well as existing literature on technology dependence and internet addiction.

However, in using this framework without considering the implications or mapping it on to a relatively harmless act, the authors somewhat risk over-fitting regular/normal behavior into a pathological framework. This would likely be better served by being considered as a habit, routine, or impulse than an addiction. That may be something to consider for future studies, and the limitations of this should be acknowledged in the following ways:

The authors should add to the introduction (and/or discussion) that there are other ways to understand internet, mobile app, or social media use–including habits, or other behavioral mechaisms which don’t require harm to be done for the use of an application to fit their definition, may be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for users, or are more neutral than addiction (LaRose, 2010; Bayer et al., 2022; Anderson & Wood, 2021). Another might be reward-learning or conditioning (as used in Lindstrom et al., 2021 to analyze Instagram data), or work on deficient self-regulation (Tokunaga, 2015). This should also include justification or reasoning for using the addiction framework for WAZE rather than one of these other known frameworks.

Further evidence of this issue is found in one part of the ‘dependency’ section, where anecdotes are used to justify saying that “Harm is reflected in developing a dependency on WAZE and a fear of leaving the home without it.” – this bordered on a very subjective interpretation of harm. One might, for example, also say that these users are being helped with their fear of driving by using this app. If not WAZE, these users would likely be dependent on another of the many navigation apps that exist. Absent a situation in which somehow, we lose all access to our smartphones (which, at the present point of society seems unlikely–and would not one simply pull over in the cases of phone overheat, or own car chargers to combat battery issues?) one might argue there is not any harm in being dependent on a maps app for navigation. If you are taking the view that depending on technology is an inherent bad or harmful, as the addiction framework seems to imply, then you reach (as these authors do here) towards interpreting this situation as harming the users. If you take another perspective you could say that this dependence is helping the users–or at least not harming them. In addition, this section provides no direct examples of harm to users or non-users related to this dependence (statistics of accidents, unsafe driving behavior, etc)--these might lend more support to this claim. I would recommend adding discussion of how the authors reasoned out their interpretation of the possible harms mentioned in this section in particular.

All of this considered, I think the authors do quite nicely in the conclusion to reject this potential pitfall of the framework used in the interviews, and rightfully note that not all of the qualities of technological/internet addiction apply in this case. Importantly, there are also legitimate harms mentioned in the “traces of relapse” section and mentions of unsafe and potentially harmful driving behavior due to WAZE dependence. Despite this, I think the use of this specific framework should be mentioned as a potential limitation, given that the interviews are structured entirely around this framework and thus don’t necessarily seek to answer questions that might have arisen from using another alternative framework (like the ones mentioned above).

With these minor revisions, I would recommend acceptance of the paper, which I think is quite strong and would be impactful for future research on this area.

Specific Notes

-Abstract has a sentence that is either missing a period or is incomplete…”as it meets users needs…”

-on PP 13 the sentence states that “In contrast to the younger group of interviews, the majority (20) of older interviewees stated that they would be reluctant to leave the house without WAZE” .. seems odd given the evidence presented is all suggesting that they would NOT be reluctant to leave the house, so I believe there’s a word missing here.

References:

Anderson, I. A., & Wood, W. (2021). Habits and the electronic herd: The psychology behind social media’s successes and failures. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 83-99.

Bayer, J. B., Anderson, I. A., & Tokunaga, R. (2022). Building and breaking social media habits. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101303.

LaRose, R. (2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20(2), 194-222.

Lindström, B., Bellander, M., Schultner, D. T., Chang, A., Tobler, P. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2021). A computational reward learning account of social media engagement. Nature communications, 12(1), 1-10.

Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Perspectives on Internet addiction, problematic Internet use, and deficient self-regulation: Contributions of communication research. Annals of the International Communication A

**********

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: Prof. Michael J. Leitner, Ph.D.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Simon M. Pack, Ph.D.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

IN WAZE WE TRUST? GPS-BASED NAVIGATION APPLICATION USERS’ BEHAVIOR AND PATTERNS OF DEPENDENCY

PONE-D-22-03742R2

Dear Dr. Galily,

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,

Dr. Rizwan Muhammad

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Excellent article! Highly recommend that it be accepted for publication. The authors addressed all concerns from the prior reviews.

**********

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: Prof. Michael J. Leitner

**********