PONE-D-22-02964Morally Lucky Investors: We find profitable investments more moral although we think we should notPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Max,

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.

We have received three reports of experts in the topic, and I agree with them that the paper is interesting but it needs substantial changes. In particular, the theoretical discussion on the concept of moral luck needs to be adjusted. Moreover, the statistical analysis is not adequate in some points: the use of ANOVA or other tests need to be justified, specially when it is not well suited, as in the case of binary variables. Please, read carefully the recommendations of the reviewers and try to update your analysis following their comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 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,

Alfonso Rosa Garcia

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 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. 

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 paper explores an interesting hypothesis but seems to over-state the empirical support for it. It would also benefit from further conceptual clarification.

Major comments

⁃ p.5: clarify the conception of moral luck. A good action is not equivalent to a good will. The Kant quote does not say “that the most important criterion of moral evaluation is the good will”

⁃ from p.11: provide more details on both studies: data, details, and results of analyses such as a table. Explain why you used this analysis rather than a one-way ANOVA or Wilcoxon test, or report results of these analyses. Provide reasons for the chosen sample sizes for both studies.

⁃ Relatedly: Study 2, p.13: Please do a sanity check that there is no statistically detectable difference in initial evaluations and labels between groups. Test for differences in immorality scores and labels before versus after outcome.

⁃ Discuss the null results of your studies in the limitations

Minor comments

⁃ p.3: Williams has coined “moral luck” as an oxymoron: provide exact reference, or remove this claim (did he really call it an “oxymoron”? Would be news to me)

⁃ p.3: ditto for “Nelkin argues that immunity from luck is seen by many [who?] as the very essence of morality”

⁃ p.4, second para should be clearer; research question should be stated succinctly

⁃ p.4: historical note: I would bet that there have been ethical restrictions on investments long before the 20th century. Consider Christian restrictions on interest in the Middle Ages or “halal” investment in Muslim Law.

⁃ p.4: definitions of “ethical investment” need further clarification. For one thing, clarify “ethical”. You seem to suggest that “non-financial” is identical with “ethical”, which is incorrect. Also, please explain why investment in alcohol or tobacco should be unethical.

⁃ p.7: explain “Knightian uncertainty”

⁃ p.7: sentence unclear, please revise: “While ethically irrelevant factors exercise a factual influence on our moral decisions, moral implications…”

⁃ p.8: “our intention would reject this”: unclear, revise

⁃ p.15: “it would be better if an institutionalised mechanism controlled that such evaluations took place behind a veil of ignorance”: either explain in detail how this follows from your studies, or remove

Reviewer #2: Review of Manuscript # PONE-D-22-02964

Title: Morally Lucky Investors: We find profitable investments more moral although we think we should not

Summary: This paper reports the results of two experiments conducted to examine whether individuals evaluate the morality of investment decisions through a lens of moral luck.

In the first experiment, participants learn that an investment decision was made and that the investment was later determined to be either profitable or unprofitable (manipulated between subjects). Participants evaluate the profitable investment as more moral than the unprofitable investment and were more likely to label the profitable investment as an “investment” as opposed to “speculation” or “gambling.”

In the second experiment, participants learn about the investment decision and then make assessments of the morality of the investment and the appropriate label before learning whether the investment was profitable or not. Participants then learn about the investment’s outcome (profit or loss) and can revise their judgments on morality and labeling. Results of this study show no differences in morality judgments or labeling between the profit and loss condition, suggesting that individuals know that they should not base these judgments on the outcome of the investment decision.

Comments on Methods:

1.) Participants: The authors should tabulate or otherwise describe the demographics of the participants in the studies and indicate whether random assignment of participants to conditions was effective. That is, are there differences in demographics across experimental conditions? If there are, the authors should statistically control for demographic variables that differ.

2.) Descriptive Statistics: The authors should tabulate full descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, number of participants, etc.) by condition for the DVs. Currently, only the means/frequencies are shown in a bar graph format.

3.) Statistical Models:

a. The morality judgments in both experiments are formally tested using ANOVA. The authors should include tables for the estimated ANOVA models.

b. For the order of DV elicitation manipulation and the investment context manipulation, the authors should analyze the interaction of these factors with the primary IV of interest (whether the investment is profitable or not). The authors only report the main effects of these two factors on the DVs; however, the main effects are of less concern than the interactive effects when interpreting whether these factors impact the inferences drawn. Also, note that when adding the interaction terms to the ANOVA to account for the full-factorial design of the experiment, the error degrees of freedom will be reduced. I replicated the reported results for experiment 1 using the data provided and found that adding the interaction terms will not affect the inferences of that study.

c. The labeling judgments in both experiments are also tested using ANOVA. This approach may be inappropriate because the dependent variable is constructed as a binary indicator variable (1 = “investment” or 0 = other labels). This may lead to violation of certain assumptions of ANOVA. A more appropriate method would be logistic regression. Again, tables for the estimated models should be presented and the interaction terms should be analyzed.

d. In the second experiment results, it would be informative to know whether participants in any condition were more likely to change their morality and labeling judgments after learning of the investment outcome. This could be accomplished by calculating a change score (reconsidered morality judgment – initial morality judgment), or by using another method. At the least, it would be useful to know whether the initial judgments varied at all by condition.

Other Comments:

1. The study’s abstract only describes the first experiment, yet the study’s title and write-up contemplate both experiments. I recommend revising the abstract to reflect the inferences drawn from the second experiment. Likewise, the conclusion paragraph does not mention the inferences of experiment 2.

2. Footnote 1 cites German Criminal Code (§46 paragraph 2 StGB), but does not explain what that part of the Code requires. More explanation would be helpful for the reader.

3. The study is partially motivated through the idea that certain investment opportunities are often touted as being more ethical – investments with underlying focus on CSR, green initiatives, etc. However, there is a bit of disconnect between this motivation and what is operationalized in the study. The investment security in the study is described as a complex financial instrument with a value that fluctuates based on changes in oil prices. No mention is made of whether the underlying investment is geared toward an ethical cause. The authors could better describe this design choice in light of the overall goals of the research and how the research is motivated.

4. The authors describe investment decisions, generally, as decisions made under conditions of Knightian uncertainty. I believe this is too strong of a statement. Typically, we think of investors making (or at least trying to make) rational decisions based on some estimation of expected value of the investment – i.e., managing risk as opposed to true Knightian uncertainty. While some investment contexts will reflect this high level of uncertainty, not all will. This also disconnects with the operationalization of the context in the experiment. In the vignettes, the investor is described as having consulted with financial advisors, presumably as a rational investor weighing risk and potential reward.

5. In the conclusion, the inferences of the study are extrapolated to infer that sustainability rating professionals may succumb to the moral luck bias when providing opinions regarding the moral evaluation of particular investments; however, this may not be the case. In the experiments, non-professionals make judgments demonstrating the moral luck effect. It is not clear that these results would generalize to professionals dedicated to such evaluations.

Reviewer #3: Summary

In study 1, they found people rate higher immoral scores for a "loss" scenario than a "profit" scenario, similarly there are less people who believe it is an investment in the "loss" scenario" than the "profit scenario". Study 2 was to analyze whether the observed pattern in Study 1 is based on moral reasoning or an unreflected moral intuition.

Comments

1. The literature has already showed people exhibit outcome bias (related to moral luck). I think the authors really need to emphasize how their work contribute to the literature. For instance, for study 1, even without their study, at least some readers would already think that people would base their evaluations and interpretations on outcome.

2. The section on “the concept of moral luck” is a bit too long and nearly included an entire paragraph of the original words from Kant. I don’t think it is necessary. It would make the story to stay on track better.

3. Figure 2a appear to show the results after they see the outcome. I think readers would be interested to see how their ratings are immediately after they see only the decision but before the outcome is revealed.

4. Figure information can be better presented. For instance, the authors can easily include a legend name of what each color of the bar represent. The authors could also consider showing the p-values on the graph (or the show the ** on the graph).

Moreover, please provide a name for the figure, at the first glance Figure 1a and Figure 2a appear to be the same.

Overall, I would think it is an interesting exercise but can be explored in more depth.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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-22-02964R1Morally Unlucky Investors: We find lossy investments less moral, even upon reflectionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Max,

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.

Note that the reviewers have some minor comments. Consider them to improve the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 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,

Alfonso Rosa Garcia

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 thank the authors for addressing some of my concerns. I would find it helpful if authors could highlight the changed passages in the manuscript or at least provide line numbers and reference them. The following concerns have in my view not been fully addressed:

⁃definition of “moral luck”: I guess the authors have been trying to rephrase Nelkin’s sentence “Moral luck occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control.” Nelkin states that the agent is *being judged*. In the manuscript, the authors give the impression that it is the agent who is *making a judgement*. This may not be intended but readers can easily get this impression. Please revise.

⁃There is still no rationale given for the chosen sample sizes. Please add these.

⁃Study 2: I do not understand why the “change score” removes the worry about initial differences in pre-evaluations between groups. Please add information about these.

⁃Please add tables for one-way ANOVAs for both studies for sake of completeness

⁃As far as I see, there is still no main effect of outcome in Study 2. Please acknowledge this.

⁃Williams reference: Thanks, now I see where the talk of moral luck as an oxymoron is coming from. Williams (“Moral Luck”, 1981) is a locus classicus for the term and Williams is generally regarded as being supportive of moral luck, so the way the term is introduced currently gives the misleading impression that Williams thought moral luck was an oxymoron. Instead, he wanted to draw attention to a puzzle. Please adjust this.

⁃Tables 1 and 2 contain three sub-columns (under “profit”) for “bank”, shouldn’t two of these be “company” and “municipality”?

Reviewer #2: Review of Manuscript # PONE-D-22-02964R1

Title: Morally Unlucky Investors: We find lossy investments less moral, even upon reflection

General Comment: The authors have addressed many of the comments I made in the previous round. This resulted in a different interpretation of the results of the second experiment, so the paper has changed somewhat. In what follows, I will re-summarize the paper as I see it and then provide further suggestions for refining the manuscript.

Summary:

This paper reports the results of two experiments conducted to examine two questions: (1) Do individuals evaluate the morality of investment decisions through a lens of moral luck, and (2) If so, is this bias conscious or unconscious?

In the first experiment, participants learn that an investment decision was made and that the investment was later determined to be either profitable or unprofitable (manipulated between subjects). Participants evaluate the decision to invest as being more immoral when the investment is unprofitable than when it is profitable. Participants were also more likely to label the profitable investment as an “investment” as opposed to “speculation” or “gambling.” These results are consistent with the concept of moral luck.

In the second experiment, participants learn about the investment decision and then assess the morality of the investment and the appropriate label before learning whether the investment was profitable or not. Participants then learn about the investment’s outcome (profitable or unprofitable, manipulated between subjects) and can revise their judgments on morality and labeling. Results indicate that participants revise their initial judgments more in the unprofitable condition. Specifically, the investment decision is reassessed as more immoral in the unprofitable condition than in the profitable condition. These results suggest that the bias toward finding profitable investments more moral is conscious.

Comments on Methods & Analyses:

1.) Tables:

a.For descriptive statistics (tables 1& 2), it would be helpful to see the means for gain, loss, and overall because the main analysis collapses across the context factor. That is – the authors are most interested in the comparison of the profit and loss conditions. The way the descriptives are currently presented seems to emphasize the context factor (bank, automotive company, and municipality) but doesn’t provide the means of most interest (profit and loss). The tables should also include the sample size, n, for each cell.

i.There is an error in labeling the conditions in these tables (bank, bank, bank…)

ii.I recommend the authors find a similar paper published in the journal and ensure that tables are formatted similarly.

b.The authors should include a table of descriptives for the change measures from experiment 2. A table for demographics should also be included (as it was for Study 1).

2.)The results and implications of study two are not well described. Please expound on what the analyses mean in terms of the overall research question addressed by Study 2: Is the moral luck bias in the investment context conscious or unconscious?

Other Comments:

1.) I do not believe the title of the paper appropriately describes the research.

a.The paper is not about “morally unlucky investors,” per se. Rather, the paper investigates moral luck in the investment context.

b.The word “lossy” is not typically used in the investment context. It has specific meaning associated with electrical conduction. I recommend the authors choose one way of describing the two possible investment outcomes (perhaps, “profitable” vs “unprofitable”) and use that terminology in the title and consistently throughout the paper.

2.)I recommend the authors carefully proofread and consider having the paper professionally copyedited prior to publication.

3.)Krische (2019) is cited to justify the participants in the study. However, Krische used a sample of all MTurk workers, while this study’s sample is drawn from a CloudResearch Prime Panel. Notably, the CloudResearch sample seems to be significantly older than the sample drawn by Krische. I recommend de-emphasizing Krische as support for the participants and better describing any filters that were used to screen participants recruited from CloudResearch.

Reviewer #3: Referee Report for PONE-D-22-02964R1

Comments:

1.Some simple explanation regarding why the treatment assignment is not symmetric is needed (when we read Table 1)

For instance, we have all categories of context (bank, auto and municipality) for loss, but only bank for profit. Since the authors says it is 2 x 3, I am wondering is it a typo? Sam for Table 2.

2.Table 3 (the authors on page 12 referred to Table 3a, which I believe is a typo)

There is a 10% significance for context, I am wondering whether the authors intend to discuss this part.

3.Table 4

We see a significant interaction between outcome and order, if so, wouldn’t it be cleaner to just analyze the data that comes first? I think the authors shall provide some explanations for this.

Other minor comment

I am slightly confused which part of the paper I shall read. As I was reviewing it, I noticed that there is another version of the paper again from Page 42. I think in the future, it might be easier not to include the original submission to avoid such confusion (but I understand it could be part of the journal’s requirement).

A kindly future suggestion to the authors:

This response to reviewer can be provided with more details to facilitate the review process. For instance, the authors can provide more details regarding the exact revisions they have made. And mention where these revisions are, on which page, which section?

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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-22-02964R2Moral Luck in Investment Contexts: We Consciously Find Unprofitable Investments Less MoralPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Max,

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.

There are some mistakes that need to be solved, as well as some points that need to be clarified, as pointed by Reviewer 3. Please, consider carefully her/his suggestions. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 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,

Alfonso Rosa Garcia

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #2: The authors have addressed all of my comments. Nice work! .

Reviewer #3: The authors really need to read their paper before their submission, in this submission, Table 2 has a table that is completely empty. And the table below it is also broken by pages.

In one of my comment (maybe I said Table 4, but it is Table 5 this time) it did show "outcome x order" has a significant effect. I don't think the authors have addressed my comments and barely responded to it. I read what is on their table. If it was a misunderstanding, then the authors need to clarify it in in depth.

Moreover, the tables generally can be formatted a bit better (please refer to some other publications either on plosone or other journals).

- e.g. spaces between figures/tables and text do not appear to follow any systematic pattern (e.g. see those above Figure 1a's title)

- tables just generally appear to be a bit like raw presentation. Some of the boarders looks thicker while others are thinner.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Moral Luck in Investment Contexts: We Consciously Find Unprofitable Investments Less Moral

PONE-D-22-02964R3

Dear Dr. Max,

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,

Alfonso Rosa Garcia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: