PONE-D-22-04001Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Specht,

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. As you can see below, the reviewers focused their reports on complementary issues. Reviewer 1, raised a number of issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative analysis (please, notice PLOS ONE's publiucation criterion #3, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-3). Reviewer 2 is more concerned about interdisciplinarity's conceptualisation in the article. These are relevant issues that should be addressed in the revision of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 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,

Sergi Lozano

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

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 note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

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: 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 study attempts to demonstrate how demographic diversity contributes to the interdisciplinary of collaborations and then contributes to perceptions of satisfaction and effectiveness of teams. A major contribution appears to be in its positioning as a mixed-method study. However, there are flaws with both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the analysis. Additionally, the paper can be greatly strengthened with the inclusion of more theoretical development and analyses at the individual level. In general, the paper makes reasonable claims, but the argument needs to be strengthened and the analysis needs to be more convincing. The claims are significant, but the novelty is not particularly clear.

The paper does not effectively use literature to contextualize the research. There is little inclusion of logical mechanisms to explain the hypotheses, which reduces the potential contributions of the study. There is not much theoretical justification given to explain why these hypotheses will be present nor is there much discussion regarding the extent to which the literature provides evidence for alternative hypotheses. Specifically, there are limited references in all of Section 2.1, which diminishes the effectiveness of the hypotheses.

Sections 3 and 4 are the areas where much improvement needs to be made to help the paper. Firstly, the description of the research setting was helpful for establishing expectations and clarifying the collaborative environment. However, the variable operationalization has some opportunities for improvement. The gender balance variable does not distinguish whether there is a majority male or majority female team; either category can potentially have the same gender balance score. Another variable, such as the proportion of male or female in the group could be developed to make interpretation clearer. Currently, it seems as though information is being lost. Also, I appreciate using the median number of citations as a measure, and I would also recommend including the mean as well for a robustness check.

The explanation of the survey measures is insufficient. How many items comprise each construct? What are the items? How closely related are the items? Instead of only the mean value in the group, I would also recommend investigating the variance of responses as well. Much more information is needed to help the later interpretations of analysis given that these are group outcomes.

Once results were being presented, more analysis should be included to help support the claims. Overall, the authors mention the limitations that arise when performing statistical analyses on small sample sizes. However, I challenge the justification of the analysis on the self-reported data. There appears to be an opportunity for the researcher to conduct analysis at the individual respondent level, which would allow for the utilization of multilevel regressions where the individual responses can be nested within the group structure. Alternatively, since the group has been the level of analysis for the paper, modeling the group responses by using cluster robust standard errors would also be another approach to account for groups while analyzing the individual data. Therefore, supplementing the current analysis with analysis at the individual level would potentially improve the contributions from the paper. Additionally, providing two descriptive statistics tables would help the reader understand the group and individual data under study. To reiterate, the group level is the focus of analysis, but the lack of data makes it difficult to prove the claims, and I suggest investigating individual-level analysis to increase confidence in the analysis of self-reported data.

The Qualitative portion of the analysis was limited. It is not clear what how the inductive coding led to the emergence of themes since the presented results do not represent concepts that can be connected back to specific theoretical arguments. Additionally, there is no indication of the frequency or number of occurrences for the topics in the data. In how many teams did each of these types of findings occur? How many people included similar thoughts? Currently, the “categories” appear to be stable, and it is challenging for a reader deepen their understanding of the collaboration process.

In summary, there are positives with the paper, but there needs to be more theoretical argumentation from literature and the analysis should be supplemented to improve the evidence supporting the claims.

Reviewer #2: This is a good paper that adds to the literature on interdisciplinarity. The use of the input-process-output model to think about the role of diversity in interdisciplinary collaboration is helpful and illuminating.

There are a few limitations, though, that should be addressed in a revision before the paper is published. Principal among these is the way in which interdisciplinary collaboration is conceptualized in this study. Using the disciplinary diversity of publication venues and the disciplinary diversity of cited articles according to the journals they appear in are very blunt instruments for assessing the process of interdisciplinary collaboration, for a host of reasons. Given that interdisciplinary process is a central theme of this paper, much more time should be spent in convincing the reader that this is a valid way of conceptualizing it.

Also, I am not in a position to evaluate the statistical work in the paper, so some of my comments may be off-target because of my ignorance about this aspect of the paper.

My comments/concerns, by line(s):

l. 35. You take working groups to be a type of team. Can you say more about how a working group compares to the typical research team that is the focus of work in, say, the science of team science? These would be cohesive, interdependent groups of researchers typically with a leader or leaders and a common objective. Are you using the term ‘working group’ in the way it is used at, e.g., NCEAS? Or is there not a difference between a working group and a research team, on your way of thinking about them?

l. 87. Use of the input-process-output model is clarifying and helpful. Another discussion of interdisciplinarity where it occurs (and specifically, crossdisciplinary integration) is in O’Rourke et al. (2016): “On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework”.

ll. 95ff. In general, research teams are not composed in this way – many are pre-existing and find new problems, or are formed out of personal affinity before a problem is identified. (For a good discussion of the range, see Twyman & Contractor (2019): “Team assembly”.) Is this perhaps an answer to the question on l. 35, i.e., what are the differences between working groups and research teams? Is there a precedent for distinguishing these categories in this way?

l. 235. Focusing on the “collation and analysis of articles used and produced” seems like a very limited way of assessing the process of interdisciplinary collaboration. Can you explain and defend why you chose to do it this way?

l. 260. How was it determined whether a published paper was a paper published by a group? People may publish with others in a group and not have it be a group paper. Were these papers listed by the groups as group publications? What were the criteria here?

ll. 262ff. Given the limitations associated with CrossREF, why not use a broader and more inclusive platform, e.g., Google Scholar?

ll. 265ff. This is a potentially suggestive measure of the interdisciplinarity of an article, but why take it to be a measure of the interdisciplinarity of a collaboration? Surely an article could have a diversity of disciplines represented in its References section, but where that fact does not correspond to interdisciplinary process in the collaboration. For example, the co-authors could be responsible for introducing literature from their disciplines without there being any interdisciplinary collaboration involved. The same is true for the output measure – a group might decide to publish in a range of journals so that teammates can receive credit in their home departments by publishing in a journal the department recognizes, without that entailing any actual disciplinary integration in the production of those papers. Since your decision to center interdisciplinary process is really the crux of this paper, you need to develop and defend this choice in more detail, IMO. And you should also address this as a limitation in the discussion.

l. 295. Did you ask any questions about interdisciplinary process in the survey? Did you receive any open-ended responses that had a bearing on how you understand interdisciplinary process?

l. 309. What was the overall response rate to the survey?

ll. 465ff. Why did you choose the A groups as the control for the group factor? (And I guess I’m not sure what you mean by “group factor” here?)

ll. 519ff. For readability, I would encourage you to use a colon or comma to separate your quote introductions from the quotes themselves, e.g., ll. 535-7 where I was tempted by the lack of punctuation to read that as one long (and very awkward) sentence.

l. 636. Were there really no changes in the working groups over time that affected their diversity? If there were, how does that affect what you’re saying here? Does it have any impact on your analyses in this paper?

l. 655. Maybe supply a couple of examples of these suggestions?

l. 670. Might it not take more time for a working group that publishes widely to have impact? How can you distinguish between differences in impact vs. differences in rate of impact?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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.

PONE-D-22-04001R1Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Crowston,

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.

As you can see below, both reviewers are satisfied with the new version of the manuscript. I am fine with that. However, Reviewer 2 pointed out to some minor issues that should be fixed before proceeding towards publication.

Moreover, Reviewer 2 also disagrees with some of the statements made in the text about interdisciplinarity and how to measure it. I would like to ask you to answer his comments (considering the relevance of the issue) and, eventually, referring to this debate in the manuscript (if you find it interesting enough).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 02 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,

Sergi Lozano

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: (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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

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: I greatly appreciate the authors' decisions in how they chose to address my comments, questions, and concerns. Overall, the paper is more effective in its goal and the main document does not have the same issues. I have no issues with this paper being accepted due to the enhanced literature review and additional analyses that were conducted at my recommendation.

Reviewer #2: This is a good paper, and one worth publishing. I appreciate the work the authors did to improve the paper in light of the previous round of comments. I think the results are especially interesting and helpful. I suspect I will cite this paper in the future.

FWIW, I disagree with both parts of this reply to my previous comment on ll. 265ff:

"We think it unlikely that authors could draw on literature from different domains in a paper without offering any synthesis or integration, that is, to be multi-disciplinary in a single paper. The scenario suggested where members of the group publish in their home disciplines without any interdisciplinary integration would yield a high score for publication diversity but a low score for citation diversity, since the individual disciplinary papers would not need (or be able to) to cite outside the discipline, so that effect would be visible in our analyses."

I have been in more than one crossdisciplinary collaboration that generated papers which would appear interdisciplinary on the authors assumptions but were decidedly multidisciplinary in their construction: different authors were given responsibility for different sections, and they brought their references along with them. And also in my experience, if a group publishes papers in the home disciplines of their members while keeping those members as co-authors (e.g., if you have the same set of co-authors but different first authors), the publications will often share a multidisciplinary set of references in common. (Perhaps there are some disciplines whose journals discourage citation outside the discipline, but I have not encountered that.)

That said, the authors are correct that the bibliometric methods they use as proxies for interdisciplinary collaboration are standard in the literature. I think they are weak measures of interdisciplinary collaboration, and as such represent a substantial limitation of this paper, but I don’t think it is fair to hold that against the authors since they are cleaving to standard practice here.

One general comment: I find the numbering helpful in keeping straight how you are nesting the sections and subsections. Perhaps this is inconsistent with PLOS One style, though? At this point, I have difficulty keeping track of which are the main sections, which are the subsections, and which are the sub-subsections.

I do have a few small comments/suggestions, none of which are deal-breakers. By line number:

l. 85 Reference [5] is repeated in here as reference [29].

ll. 112-3 This still seems too fast to me. You can have a diverse team with very little integration – e.g., a multidisciplinary team that has one person (say, the PI) who is especially committed to broad citation. “[T]he diversity of authors and the references they cite” give you very little information about whether any of the processes mentioned in the quote from [33] actually took place in the team. IMO, of course. (Not that you are in a position to do better than this, given that you weren’t part of these groups – see the comment above.) It would make me a bit happier to see the authors note the gap between the processes mentioned in the quote and the proxy variables mentioned in the last sentence.

l. 185 Should be ‘have’, not ‘has’.

ll. 205-8 I have difficulty parsing the clause that includes two instances of "accepted by" – is there something missing between "university" and the second "accepted"?

l. 372 Space missing between ‘members’ and ‘who’.

ll. 479-81 On what is this claim based?

l. 543 If you make reference to the section numbering, you should number your sections.

ll. 669-70 The two "but" clauses in this sentence makes it difficult to interpret. Rewrite?

ll. 682-3 Not sure how to read this last clause. Is it supposed to be another example of positive consideration of the value of diversity in general? Maybe set its context up a bit more?

ll. 789-90 Would it be fair to say that your results only show muted short-term impact?

ll. 800-3 Perhaps this is not surprising, given that you only draw from groups that were productive and productivity is positively correlated with satisfaction (ll. 481-3).

ll. 868-70 Not sure what you mean by "staged output"? What findings suggest this? I am not sure I can locate what in your Results section supports this guideline.

l. 874 You don't need the commas in (4) – they make it hard to parse.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Michael O'Rourke

**********

[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.

Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes

PONE-D-22-04001R2

Dear Dr. Crowston,

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,

Sergi Lozano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: