PONE-D-22-17959Changes in the length of speeches in English plays (1538-1642): a linear mixed models approachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hugh Craig,

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.

I found the work interesting and worth of publication. However, before sending this paper out to reviewers I read it myself and came to conclusion that some critical modifications and revisions are to be made before giving the paper consideration for publication.

Major concerns:

1. The innovative centerpiece of the paper is the application of the linear mixed model (LME) to demonstrate that the reduction of the average number of words per sentence in the play is robust with respect to other contributing factors, such as authorship, genre, theater, etc. To my surprise, I did not find any report of the LME model these claims are based on. This model along with all parameters and its statistical characteristics must be displayed in the main body of the paper accompanied with detailed explanation. The authors must explain all variables and justify the choice of the random effect. Note that the discussion of the model in SI part is not sufficient. Moreover, it seems that the authors present many models in SI, but it’s unclear what model is the final for interpreting the results and drawing conclusions in the abstract. Generally, I would like to have more detailed description of the methodology – the driving force of the results of the work.
2. The nonlinear curves derived through nonparametric estimation via splines displayed in Fig. 1, 5, etc. are not justified. They look to me as the result of overfitting – a typical artifact unless they can be explained and tested through extensive simulations. Instead, just using a simpler but more robust two-segment regression would be more trustful.
3. The authors should explain or at least offer some hypothesis why sentences became dramatically shorter within a 5-year period. What happened? That would considerably increase the visibility of the work.
4. It is established in statistics to use Poisson distribution for counts such as the number of words in the sentence. I suggest reconsidering the model using log link in the GLM mixed model. Alternatively, the authors may work with log-transformed counts. This approach will substantially reduce the effect of outliers.
5. I see lack of statistical significance testing and reporting p-values when comparing the results from two time periods. These p-values should be displayed right on the figures.  

Minor concerns:

1. Replace “English plays (1538-1642)” with “…plays of William Shakespeare and his contemporaries…” I believe that the new title is catchier and will attract larger readership.
2. “In this paper we aim to model speech length variation in these plays as comprehensively as possible” is not specific enough. Explain exactly how your work is different from others. Using mixed model?
3. You use the mode as the central tendency measure but mixed model assumes that the central tendency measure is the mean. I see a contradiction.
4. 136: “…with mixed modes..” Is it a typo? Why modes? Shouldn’t be models?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 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,

Eugene Demidenko, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 7 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

4. 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

5. Please upload a copy of all your Supporting Information Figure which you refer to in your text.

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

[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-22-17959R1Changes in the length of speeches in the plays of William Shakespeare and his contemporaries: a mixed models approachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Craig,

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 Feb 25 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.

Two qualified reviewers provided comments that must be fully addressed in the point-by-point fashion. 

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,

Eugene Demidenko, 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: Yes

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: Yes

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: Comments

This manuscript demonstrates an interesting attempt of applying statistical methods to analyzing the development trends in literary studies. Informative research findings include a shift towards shorter speeches used in plays and the possible influence of writing fashion. My suggestions focus on the statistical analysis section of this study:

1. “The length of words in speeches”, as was mentioned on Page 1, is the outcome variable/independent variable of the study. The authors have endeavored to provide a clear definition of “speech” on Page 3. Personally I think the readers would benefit from an example from the play scripts. “Speech” is often measured as the number of syllables between identifiable pauses in applied linguistics, while the number of words is the major index for evaluating speech length. In the literature review section, 2007 MacDonald P Jackson adopted a different system in calculating speech length—3-6 words/3-10 words were categorized as a speech. The authors have also made the argument of why syllabification is not used in this study on Page 8. It would help the readers, however, to dissolve possible doubts and keep the measurement of speech consistent if explanations appear at an earlier place in this manuscript.

2. I appreciate the detailed explanation of statistical methods from Page 11 to Page 14. However, this section could be reduced to some extent, as readers who have background knowledge in quantitative analysis usually understand how linear mixed models work. The selection of variables, or the identification of key predictors for speech length, requires a large amount of justification. This is in connection with the literature review section. I would recommend that the researchers dedicate more efforts to investigating previous studies discussing possible predictors of speech length, such as authorship, genre, etc. It is highly possible that not a lot of quantitative studies could be found, as statistical analysis might not have been the main research paradigm in literary studies. However, researchers’ discussion of possible factors would still help answer the major question of this study: which factors need to be included (or excluded) from the linear mixed model and why?

3. As for the discussion and implication section, my suggestions originate more from an applied linguistic approach. In addition to identifying significant predictors, the function of linear mixed models also lies in sorting out the most powerful factors rendering the final outcome variable. In the discussion section, instead of starting with an audience perspective, the authors could briefly report the coefficients in the model and discuss significant predictors and most influential predictors, which might be corroborated by the scripts used as examples.

It is exciting to see quantitative methods are also playing a role in literary research, and interdisciplinary studies were conducted in-depth with the help of statistics. The innovative methodology deserves a more prominent place in the implication part, which hopefully would be assist researchers with similar needs in their academic inquires.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-17959R1

Manuscript Title: Changes in the length of speeches in the plays of William Shakespeare and his contemporaries: a mixed models approach

The article does a good job of establishing its findings in a succinct and easy-to-understand manner. However, there were a few issues that need to be revised. There are as follows:

Major issues:

While the overall quality of the article is good and it is scientifically sound, quite a few claims made in the article are unsubstantiated.

For instance:- the sentence ‘The change in speech lengths is part of a wider collective drift in the plays towards liveliness and verisimilitude and is evidence of a hitherto hidden constraint on the playwrights.’ might be accurate, it would do well to establish this with a few instances of this so-called ‘hidden constraint’ or ‘hidden patterns’ as mentioned in section 1.

Similarly, the phrase ‘publishers who applied other equally well-established typographical conventions to mark off the speeches when printing plays from manuscripts.’ In section 1 would also do well by adding a few examples of these ‘typographical conventions’ to substantiate the claim of the sentence. (i.e. everyone knows there are certain ‘typographical conventions to mark off speeches’, but in a scientific article, these do need to be explicitly mentioned, even if in passing.)

The sentence ‘Comparatively long speeches, such as soliloquies and speeches reporting off-stage events, declaring sentiments, or attempting to persuade, have attracted the most commentary to date, so we might assume this sort of length is dominant.’ In section 1 is another example of a sentence making a sweeping remark without substantiating it. (While it be accurate that longer speeches attract more commentary, in a scientific article you need to back that up with facts and proof, either referencing from where you derive this information, or making this analysis yourself from the data you have.)

There are quite a few sentences in the article that share this issue, and they stick out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-writ and researched article. I would suggest that the authors take some time to go through the article to either substantiate (with valid references), or get rid of, unsubstantiated claims.

Minor issues:

The article is afflicted with several grammatical and spelling issues, which is unbecoming of a scientific article, specially one that deals with William Shakespeare’s plays. It would be better to go through the article closely and remove any syntactic inaccuracies. A few examples of these are :

in section 1.2, ‘ Ilsemann observed that in these plays the commonest speech length …’

shouldn’t it be ‘most common’ instead of ‘commonest’, as it is much widely used and also avoids ambiguity? In a similar fashion, in the same section, the sentence ‘Lines shared between speakers were rare in Shakespeare’s earliest plays, making up two per cent or so of the total, but became more common in his middle period, and commoner still at the end, with the last plays.’ Makes use of the word ‘commoner’, rather than ‘even more common’. The word ‘commoner’, specially in an article pertaining to Shakespearean plays, could easily be misinterpreted as ‘a common person, as distinguished from one with rank, status, etc.’ and introduce ambiguity in a otherwise lucid and well-articulated article.

In the abstract, the sentence ‘We confirm that that the mode …’ falls prey to one of the more common errors that occur while typing or writing anything in English. The dreaded ‘that that’ in the abstract of an scientific article is disappointing.

I would suggest the authors to comb through the article and rid it of these minor issues before the article is ready for publication.

**********

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: Abhinav Jha

**********

[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 for the authors.docx

Changes in the length of speeches in the plays of William Shakespeare and his contemporaries: a mixed models approach

PONE-D-22-17959R2

Dear Dr. Craig,

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,

Eugene Demidenko, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: