Laboratory performance prediction using virtual reality behaviometrics

Philip Wismer; Sarah Aparecida Soares; Kasper Alnor Einarson; Morten Otto Alexander Sommer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279320

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 13, 2022
2 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Heng Luo, Editor PONE-D-22-14033 Laboratory performance prediction using virtual reality behaviometrics PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sommer, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision. Kind regards, Heng Luo, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: It has been marked as a duplicate submission by Editorial Manager system of Plos One. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.] - - - - - For journal use only: PONEDEC3 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279320.r001
Revision 1
23 Jun 2022 Author Response Dear Dr. Heng Luo and Editorial Board of PLOS ONE, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled "Laboratory performance prediction using virtual reality behaviometrics". We believe that the manuscript was marked as duplicate submission by the Editorial Manager system because it was previously included in Dr. Wismer's PhD thesis (https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/258081313/PhDThesis_PhilipWismer_3_.pdf). Under Danish law, the thesis needs to be publicly available from the University’s online library. Hence, we would like to highlight that the presented work has not been previously published in any academic journal. Given these circumstances, we would therefore appreciate if you were willing to re-evaluate our submission. Sincerely, Morten Sommer & Philip Wismer Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: MortenSommer_Response to Editor.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279320.r002
24 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Editor PONE-D-22-14033R1Laboratory performance prediction using virtual reality behaviometricsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sommer, 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 Oct 08 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, Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The present study evaluates the feasibility of using VR behaviometrics in biopharma manufacturing as a replacement for a compliance test and alternative to real-life assessment. The experimental studies are overall well designed and the data analysis appears to be robust. The experiments show that this approach represents a step towards replacing existing performance demonstrations and compliance tests. To make it more understandable, some aspects of the paper can be improved: - In the “Procedure” section add an overview of the VR simulator of pH meter use. - Add some images for the tasks performed in VR simulation; - Specify the participants’ age range and previous experience of using VR simulators. - Indicate whether the VR simulator caused participants to experience any negative effects related to cybersickness. - Provide some details about future work; Regards ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279320.r003
Revision 2
22 Sep 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1 We thank the reviewer for their excellent comments, which we have addressed as detailed below to improve the manuscript: “In the “Procedure” section add an overview of the VR simulator of pH meter use.” We have added a short paragraph on the VR simulator that was used at the beginning of the “Procedure” section (lines 81-85). “Add some images for the tasks performed in VR simulation” We have included a new figure (Fig 1, line 100) showcasing the two tasks mentioned in the manuscript: flushing the pH electrode with water and evaluating different pH calibration points. We have added references to the figure on lines 89 and 93. The numbering of existing figures was adjusted accordingly. “Specify the participants’ age range and previous experience of using VR simulators” We have added the age range of participants on line 68: “pharmaceutical company employees (male: 37, female: 18; all age intervals above 20 years)” and line 71: “first-year students from two biopharma production schools (male: 20, female: 4; all age intervals from 10 to 50 years)”. We have added the self-reported experience with VR as part of the metrics table (Table 1, line 119) and included the following reference on line 73: “78% of participants reported that they had never tried VR before participating in this study, while 22% had used occasionally.” “Indicate whether the VR simulator caused participants to experience any negative effects related to cybersickness.” The VR simulation was designed to reduce cybersickness. However, there were a couple of participants that could not continue the VR simulation for this reason. These participants were disregarded for the analysis. Line 108: “incomplete data records (e.g., if participants dropped out due to cybersickness) were excluded from the analysis.” “Provide some details about future work” We added a new paragraph at the end of the discussion section to address limitations and further directions (lines 262-271). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_220907.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279320.r004
5 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Editor Laboratory performance prediction using virtual reality behaviometrics PONE-D-22-14033R2 Dear Dr. Sommer, 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, Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D. Academic 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 Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Dear authors, I really appreciate all your efforts to address all the comments in a very positive manner. Now the article is good enough to publish in the current state. Regards ****** 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: Dr. Gopal Nambi, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279320.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Editor PONE-D-22-14033R2 Laboratory performance prediction using virtual reality behaviometrics Dear Dr. Sommer: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Walid Kamal Abdelbasset Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279320.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .