Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 6, 2022
Decision Letter - Fahmi Hussein Kakamad, Editor

PONE-D-22-29908Development of a digital imaging analysis system to evaluate the treatment response in superficial infantile hemangiomasPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

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 Mar 19 2023 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,

Fahmi Hussein Kakamad

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: -A thorough English language revision is required.

-What is RGB appearing in the abstract, when an abbreviation appears for the first time, it should be defined.

-How the system helps in the clinical practice?! the authors should clearly address the benefit of this system

-Reference number 18,20,21 and 22 should be rewritten to become searchable reference

Reviewer #2: � The manuscript needs to be refined by a native speaker.

Introduction

1. Line 41. references are not listed in order of appearance in the text

2. Line 42. It is not appropriate to begin a sentence with an abbreviation. It must be corrected.

3. Line 66-96. The source from where you received this sentence should be cited.

4. The introduction part is typically very lengthy and needs to be brief.

Method

1. The method section has been well written and organized

2. Image acquisition:

Line 95. Please do not use abbreviation in the method section or at least write the complete word once before using abbreviation

3. Data acquisition: It is best to write inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria under different subheadings.

4. Ethical consideration: Ethics approval Please provide the ethics approval no.

Reference

The DOI should include references 4, 18, 20, 21, and 22.

Figure 2. A, B, C and D must be placed to the top left of each section of the figure, NOT overlapping the image

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comments.docx
Revision 1

Dear Editor,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled "Digital imaging analysis system evaluating treatment response in superficial infantile hemangiomas". We appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions and have considered them in revising our work. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns.

Comment 1:

The manuscript needs to be refined by a native speaker.

We appreciate your suggestion that the manuscript needs to be refined by a native speaker. We have asked a native English speaker to help us polish our article. We believe that this revision has greatly improved the readability and clarity of our manuscript.

Comment 2: Introduction:

A.Line 41. references are not listed in order of appearance in the text.

We agree with the reviewer's assessment and have revised the manuscript to ensure that all references are listed in the order of appearance within the text.

B.Line 42. It is not appropriate to begin a sentence with an abbreviation. It must be corrected.

We appreciate your attention to detail and your suggestion regarding the use of abbreviations at the beginning of sentences. We have reviewed the text and made the necessary corrections to ensure that abbreviations are only used after they have been fully spelled out and defined.

C.Line 66-96. The source from where you received this sentence should be cited.

As suggested by the reviewer, we have added more references to support the statements in lines 66- 96. (references 8 and 18).

D.The introduction part is typically very lengthy and needs to be brief.

We have carefully reviewed the section and removed any redundant or unnecessary information while still maintaining the essential elements required for a comprehensive understanding of the background and context of the study.

Comment 3: Method

A.The method section has been well-written and organized. Image acquisition. Line 95. Please do not use abbreviations in the method section, or at least write the complete word once before using abbreviations

We agree with the reviewer's assessment. We have reviewed the text to ensure that all abbreviations are defined at first occurrence within the text.

B.Data acquisition: It is best to write inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria under different subheadings.

We think this is an excellent suggestion and have now included the inclusion and exclusion criteria under a new subheading.

C.Ethical consideration: Ethics approval Please provide the ethics approval no.

As suggested by the reviewer, we have provided the ethics number in the manuscript.

Comment 4: References

The DOI should include references 4, 18, 20, 21, and 22.

Reference 4 was obtained from a book; therefore, the doi is unavailable.

References 19 (previous 18), 21 (previous 20), and 22 (previous 21) are patents. We have now amended the format of these references to align with the PLOS ONE guidelines.

Reference 23 (previous 22) was obtained from a journal. We have now included the DOI for this reference.

Comment 5: Figures

Figures 2. A, B, C, and D must be placed to the top left of each section of the figure, NOT overlapping the image

We have now reformatted figure 2 so that the labels do not obscure the images.

Once again, we would like to thank you for your time and expertise, and we hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Sincerely,

Qian Liu

The First Affiliated Hospital of GanNan Medical University

Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China

liuqianjxzyy@163.com

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer Comments.docx
Decision Letter - Fahmi Hussein Kakamad, Editor

Development of a digital imaging analysis system to evaluate the treatment response in superficial infantile hemangiomas

PONE-D-22-29908R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Fahmi Hussein Kakamad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Fahmi Hussein Kakamad, Editor

PONE-D-22-29908R1

Development of a digital imaging analysis system to evaluate the treatment response in superficial infantile hemangiomas

Dear Dr. Liu:

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. Fahmi Hussein Kakamad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .