https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0073-5467
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 12, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-08195 A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streets PLOS ONE Dear Rita Abdel Sater, thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by three experts in the field, we feel that it has merit but does not meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. I appreciate very much the Reviewers' efforts for providing their thoughtful and detailed comments while evaluating the manuscript. You will see that while mostly finding the research topic exciting (including myself), the Reviewers' opinions have disagreed to a considerable extent. We invite you, however, to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process, paying particular attention to the following major points: 1) Please carefully check all technical and statistical issues mentioned by the Reviewers. Explain if your data sets were tested for normality, and which statistical inference was used for respective data sets. Also, for each p-value please report which statistic was taken, also considering tests' directionality, multiplicity issues and so forth. 2) Please justify if an ethical approval would (not) be required for your work. In case of uncertainty, please consult with the PLOS ONE Editorial Team on this issue. 3) Please downscale Discussion so that the conclusions would be better supported by your data. Also, please make sure to thoroughly address all the other Reviewers' comments and suggestions. Please submit your revised manuscript within six months from this date as thereafter, any revision has to be considered a new submission. 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:
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: http://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. Thank you for choosing PLOS ONE for communicating your reasearch. Kind regards, Sasha Alexander N. 'Sasha' Sokolov, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
This research was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (EUR FrontCog ANR-17-EURE-0017*). It was also made possible by the support and funding of the Paris City Hall Green Spaces and Environment Department (DEVE). We gratefully thank Arnaud Le Bel Hermile and Mariane Lavallee (Acteurs du Paris durable) for their support and insight throughout this study. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: This research was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (EUR FrontCog ANR-17-EURE-0017*) to Coralie Chevallier. It was also made possible by the support and funding of the Paris City Hall Green Spaces and Environment Department (DEVE). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that Figures 2-3 includes an image of a participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: No 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: This is an interesting line of research, examining the link between bag color for trash receptacles, and perceptions about the number of receptacles in a public space (what the authors define as bin density). A series of experiments are reported examining the influence of bag color on perceptions of bin density. Results show that red bags produce higher ratings of bin density, compared to grey bags (Study 1). Study 2 shows that green bags also result in higher density ratings, and finally, in Study 3 we see that green bags also work to increase density ratings. Based on these results, the authors argue that switching the bag color to blue can increase bin density, and thereby decrease littering rates across the city of Paris. While the topic of the study was exciting, the results do not warrant publication in their current form. Listed below are my key concerns, and unfortunately, I do not believe that these issues can be addressed without additional data. 1. The critical missing piece is data showing the connection between bin density and litter. The authors make a fundamental assumption that higher bin density will result in lower littering rates, but this is not substantiated. In fact, from the social psychological research on normative influence, there is reason to predict that increased bin density could spark MORE litter in environments that have a high degree of existing litter (see research by Cialdini on the focus theory of normative conduct). 2. More clarity is needed about the theoretical foundations of this research. The authors briefly mention the Signal Detection Theory, and later 'Nudge Theory', yet the results are not integrated into these two foundations. Specifically, Study 3 revealed the strongest increases in perceptions of receptacles as a result of switching to blue bags, compared to green and red bags. However, the authors do not address that this result is contradictory to the signal detection theory's claims for increased attention to the color red. In addition, while Nudge Theory is cited, there is a body of research in social psychology around norms that is highlight relevant and should be integrated into the paper. 3. One of the implications of this research is support for supplementing the cost associated with increased trash bins compared with increased salience of existing bins. However, the authors mention that the city previously utilized green bags but switched to grey bags to reduce the appearance of trash receptacles in crowded public spaces. Thus, this study's findings are in opposition to the intended application by the City of Paris. 4. The authors use the phrase 'perceived trash density' to refer to the salience of trash bins, but this term mischaracterizes the physical norm. Trash density could be misinterpreted to refer to the amount of litter or trash in the physical environment. Instead, the authors should refer to this as perceived receptacle density. Reviewer #2: This article reports the findings from three studies that assessed the impact of bin bag color on bin visibility in an online experimental setting. Using a Signal Detection Theory approach and photographs featuring bins on urban Parisian streets as stimuli, the authors tested whether changing the bin bag color from grey to red, green or blue increased bin detection rates. Studies 1 and 2 involved British participants to infer a common nationality of tourists to Paris, whereas Study 3 featured a more local Parisian sample. I found this article an interesting read, and I believe it addresses an important gap in literature in the area of environmental psychology and policy. The authors have provided a convincing example of a series of online studies that lends itself to cost-effective implications in real-life contexts. However, I have identified four main areas that require revision before the article can fulfill the criteria of publication in this journal. These revisions do not require extensive adjustments to the manuscript, and thus I have recommended minor revisions. CRITICAL APPRAISAL The authors haven’t discussed limitations in regard to the methodology that they have used. The studies could be seen as very leading and lacking ecological validity based on the design (i.e. telling people to look for bins and stating if they have seen them vs. not). They do note analytical techniques to try and reduce biases, but this also needs to be acknowledged in the discussion. At the moment, it implies that the findings show detectability, but that cannot be assumed to translate to everyday experiences of the Parisian streets. It would have been nice to have a field study to test it in a real life context or a laboratory study that has a less obvious leading focus, but at least the authors should acknowledge the barriers of conducting an experimental (online) study and its implications. In summary, more discussion and critical appraisal of the aforementioned points would make the article a more sound and convincing piece of scientific research. LACK OF REFERENCES The Introduction makes a strong case for the rationale of the study, and the authors have discussed the impacts of litter in the environment convincingly. Similarly, discussion on implications is thorough and plausible. In my view, some of the key claims, especially those in the Introduction (e.g. information about Paris’ waste management system and budget, endogenous and exogenous attention) and sections of the methods (e.g. when justifying bin bags colours) would need to be supported with references. I would recommend that the authors provide more justification to their claims by providing more references to existing literature throughout. Finally, it is surprising that nudge theory was only mentioned in the Discussion, and not in the Introduction, so an earlier reference is needed. OMISSIONS/INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RESULTS SECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS In general, the Method and Results sections read well and are concise, and the provided photographs that help to illustrate the experimental design. The authors have also explained the application of the methodology in the current studies very well. However, the authors’ statement of statistical power (Method section) is incoherent and superficial, as it is unclear what “a minimum effect of 10%” means. PLOS ONE guidelines state that “If a sample size calculation was performed, specify the inputs for power, effect size and alpha”. Regarding how the authors have reported their findings, I think it important that the statistical tests are mentioned each time the results are reported (as currently ‘paired t-tests’ is only mentioned in Results for study 1), and past tense should be used when reporting findings. As PLOS ONE asks for effect sizes, these should be provided, or a justification as to why they haven’t been provided in this instance should be given. As this paper seems to be directed to decision makers, it would also be useful to qualitatively state the effect size (e.g. d = xx, a medium effect) to help emphasize the strength further. The largest omission within the results section is the detailed given for the ANOVAs. The results from the mixed model ANOVAs are not reported in enough detail to follow the analysis, know what was done and for the reader to conclude which color bags produced the ‘larger’ changes from grey. Although the authors provide the d’ values earlier in the results section, it would still be useful to state here the directions of the interaction effects and report post-hoc analyses if relevant. Figure 4 helps with this interpretation, but clearer (and higher resolution) interaction plots could be provided to help illustrate results from the mixed model ANOVA. The authors should also note that the Interpretation of the findings for reaction times on page 16 seem incorrect, stating reaction time was shorter for the colored condition, but then Study 2B the colored condition was slower (1056 seconds vs. 1006 seconds). Moreover, while all other studies report what the equivalent of the percentage difference would be in terms of number of new bins installed in Paris, this information is not provided for the blue bag condition (Study 2B). Another key point is that the authors have referred to potentially new findings in the Discussion (asking participants which color they would pick). Is this already published, thus needing a citation, or is this unpublished work? This information either needs to be citeable or included as a study in the paper, as no new findings should be introduced in the Discussion. WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND FORMATTING The paper is mostly written in clear and consistent way. However, the authors should note that “zero-cost” is a strong statement for this paper. As the purpose of the paper wasn’t to run a cost-benefit analysis, it looks like this is based on an assumption (for example, might colored bags be charged differently, need different suppliers, harder to source?). It is also important to use neutral terms (“manpower” could be changed to ‘resources’ in the Introduction) and avoid idiomatic expressions (“down-the-road” could be changed to ‘subsequent’ in the Discussion). Similarly, “promising” (p. 9) needs to be elaborated on for clarity as in its current format it appears contradictory. In regard to formatting, use of line numbers and double spacing throughout would have made the article easier to read and review. Similarly, it is important to be consistent with formatting of paragraph transitions. Finally, the paper should be checked for typing errors and clarity – Some typos, formatting errors and other points that need elaboration are listed below: o \\the and /word” (\\ is sometimes used in place of “) o SD should be used instead of +/- (when reporting age of participants) o p < :001 should be p < 0.001 (PLOS ONE guidelines) o be consistent with reporting the statistics – 2 decimal points o close bracket missing on page 16 o Some numbers don’t add up (p. 12 (104-204 = 309) might mean one participant did not report their gender, but needs to be stated.) o As the studies were not ran under highly controlled laboratory conditions, they should not be referred to as laboratory studies (maybe experimental online studies) o Paragraph 5/6 in the Introduction: Should be reworded to better reflect that bins that blend with the environment are NOT a good idea o Were people who reported being color blind excluded from the study? There’s reference this information was collected, but did not state how the authors used it. o Abstract: It is not clear to a reader who hasn’t read the full text whether the “replication studies” mentioned at the end are included in or separate from the “three pre-registered studies” mentioned at the beginning. Reviewer #3: The manuscript reports an experiment based on internet data collection on a visual detection task of trash bins within a complex visual scene. The experimental design is a within-subjects in which the colour of the visual target is manipulated. The results show that when the target is coloured the sensitivity of the subject is higher than when the target is grey. The result is replicated with different colours, and it turns out that blue is the one that favours a higher detectability of the target. Furthermore, a final study shows that the effect is present regardless of whether participants are previously familiar with the target or with the complex visual scene. The idea that colour shade can influence the detection (and identification) of visual stimuli is not particularly new, but the scope of this study is. I found the manuscript interesting and well written. The methodology is sound. In fact, the visual detection paradigm is applied to a realistic context, the images are cityscapes of Paris, and the target are the city's trash bins. I agree with the authors on the relevance of the study which demonstrates how changing the colour of the bin bags from the current grey to blue can increase bin detection and potentially improve urban decency. However, I feel that some of the claims (particularly in the discussion) are speculative. Although the dependent variable is the detection accuracy for individual bins in cityscape images, the authors refer several times in the text to the perceived density of bins. Since the latter is never measured directly or indirectly, I think the authors should revisit the claim that changing the colour of the bag produces an increase in the perceived density of the bins. If the authors assume a linear relationship between detection accuracy and the perceived density of the bins in the visual scene, they should at least substantiate this relationship with other data or with support from previous literature, since they only have one bin per image in this experiment. Perceived density may in fact depend not only on detectability, but also on salience and other contextual factors. The same applies to the conversion between the increase in detection accuracy and the absolute number of bins in the city and consequently also to the equivalent economic savings. In fact, the data analysed refer to two-dimensional images with exposure times of 700 milliseconds. as the authors were interested in measuring the bottom-up effect related to colour. What would happen without such high time pressure? In a real-life situation there is usually sufficient time for serial scanning of scene elements and this could greatly reduce the difference in detection rate between coloured and grey bins. Therefore, quantifying economically the savings in terms of number of bins based on the data of this experiment which is limited to a very specific condition could be misleading. It is not known how much the detection rate would increase under real conditions, nor the perceived density of bins (in the virtual or real environment). Although reporting how many euros would be saved is suggestive, the exact amount remains speculative. I would recommend the article for publication only after the authors have more cautiously revised the sentences that are not directly supported by the experimental data. Have you checked that the assumptions for ANOVAs were met? You should report this in a sentence in the analysis section. You should also report if any correction has been applied and you should also better specify the t.test (is it always equal variance two-tailed t-test?). When doing multiple test on the same dataset you should perform a correction for multiple comparisons (for example when testing green vs red vs blue in pairs). Sometimes it is not clear which are the factors and the levels of the factor in the ANOVAs: In the ANOVA for COLOUR x STUDY, how many COLOUR factor levels are there? one would expect a factor with 3 levels (red, green, and blue) and thereafter a series of pair-wise post-hoc with correction for multiple comparisons, but you seem to have done 3 separate ANOVAs, is there a particular reason? In experiment 3 which are the factors (and the levels for each factor) for the mixed ANOVA? Minor I think there are some inconsistencies in the notation (e.g. sometimes d'0, .d0, d0, etc.). I think that the dot and not the colon should go before the decimal part of the p value. When the SDT indices are described, there are slashes instead of quotation marks. The d'0 represents the sensitivity of the participant to the stimulus. Indeed, for the same signal-to-noise ratio d'0 can vary from participant to participant. Although d' tends to increase as the signal-to-noise ratio increases (the signal and noise probability curves get further apart) I would not expressly say that d' represents the signal-to-noise ratio, but rather the sensitivity of the measuring instrument or the person making the detection. It is true that “participants did not have enough time to fully scan the scene in a top-down fashion” but at the same time the task was based on a voluntary active search involving also endogenous attention. From the introduction it seems that the task focuses on endogenous attention, but endogenous attention takes about 300 ms to be deployed and can be sustained at will whereas exogenous attention takes only about 100 ms to be deployed and it is transient (for reviews see Carrasco 2015 or Giordano 2009). Given that average reaction times are above one second this would suggest a deliberate serial scanning of the visual scene, but the fact that there is an increase in performance and also a reduction in reaction times in the 'colour' condition suggests a greater involvement of exogenous attention. It remains to be seen whether prolonging the exposure time further will cause the advantage to lapse (how is the performance in catch trials?). In real-life situations we rarely have less than a second to identify the bin. I think the part about attention and reaction time is lacking in the discussion. The euro symbol is not always written correctly and sometimes the thousand separator is missing in numbers ********** 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: Yes: Giulio Contemori [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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-21-08195R1A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streetsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abdel Sater, thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by four experts in the field, we feel that despite their diverging opinions, 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 make sure in your revised version, to address Reviewers' comments in the point-by point manner, paying particular attention to the statistical and technical aspects of your work as mentioned in Reviewers' reports, and especially, the concerns raised by Reviewers 1 (including their previous report) and 4 below. Please submit your revised manuscript within six months fom this date as afterwards, any revision has to be considered as a new submission. 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:
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. Thank you for choosing PLOS ONE for reporting your research. Kind regards, Sasha Alexander N. 'Sasha' Sokolov, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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) Reviewer #4: (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: Partly Reviewer #4: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: I Don't Know ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ********** 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 Reviewer #4: 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: The authors have put considerable effort into revising their manuscript “A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets”, and as a result, the paper has improved. As mentioned in my first review, this paper provides a novel contribution to literature, and the rationale and implications of the conducted research are now discussed in a more convincing manner in the revised version. More revisions are needed (specifically relating to the stats and some areas needing further elaboration), therefore I have recommended minor revisions. There are some inconsistencies in the Results reporting which I would like to draw the authors’ attention to. First, the authors need to clarify how they obtained the reported Cohen’s d effect sizes. The reported effect sizes do not match my own calculation of Cohen’s d when using the provided means and SD and exceed the feasible range (and thus the reportings of large effect sizes are also not in line with the data). Second, more information is still needed for the ANOVA results. Specifically, the reporting of factor levels doesn’t seem consistent: row 326 ->: why is STUDY now a 2-level factor? row 393 ->: “3-level STUDY factor (study 394 2.B vs study 4)”). All effects need to be fully reported: the main effect of STUDY and COLOR as well as the currently reported interaction. The justification of the follow-up analysis needs to also be given: by running separate mixed ANOVAs, familywise error is not being controlled for. Either consider running post-hoc analysis that is appropriate for these data, or provide a rationale for the chosen analysis. Finally, the statistics need to be fully reported (e.g. following APA guidelines, such as providing the effect size (partial eta squared)). In terms of the reviewed literature and theory, the authors have now mentioned nudges in the Introduction, which is a necessary addition. However, please provide more elaboration around nudging and related literature. The paragraph starting on line 72 sounds crucial for this paper, but more elaboration is needed (a more appropriate level of depth can be found in the discussion, but this also needs to come earlier to set the scene of the paper). Some areas of the text also need more clarification. For example, how many studies are being reported and the role of each one is not clear throughout the paper (e.g. in the abstract and end of the introduction). From my interpretation, there are five studies: three that tests detectability of bins using different colored bags on a British (tourist) population, another to test on a different population (residents) and one perception study. This needs to be made clearer throughout and would recommend avoiding the term “replicability studies” as I believe the studies all have their own unique contribution to promote and thus is more than just a “replicability study”. Finally, there are a few minor omissions and typing errors that need to be resolved: - Avoid non-scientific writing (e.g. lines 269-27, 273-274, 339) – decisions should be based on evidence, not intuition or what is thought to be “interesting” - Unsupported claims – the addition of the notes on color blindness needs to be supported with evidence (e.g. % of the sample that were colorblind and a reference to what this figure is being compared to). - row 132 ->: It is not clear how detectability was determined here, as the authors don’t explain what the pilot study participants actually did and this information comes later in the paper. - Ensure past tense is used for reporting the studies (e.g. Study 1) - row 147: “We also collected INFORMATION ON socio-demographic variables” - row 269 ->: It would be useful if the authors provided further justification for testing additional colors, as this was provided in their response to the reviewers but not in the revised paper. - Sentence starting on row 217 should be revised for clarity - sometimes discriminability is referred to as d´ and sometimes d0 – be consistent - row 289: could be clearer what this means - row 296: is missing “308 for Study 2.B” - check numbers – sample size varies between 305 and 300 for Study 2.A. - Check consistency of incentives (between the studies they vary in currency ($ vs. €) and in value (7.50-62). - Row 339: explain what you mean by a “random sample” - Row 345: please also summarize the demographic profile of this sample - Row 388 – incomplete bracket - rows 451 – 455: The same sentence is written twice. Reviewer #3: The manuscript is significantly improved in clarity and completeness of detail. I thank the authors for taking into consideration my previous comments, the changes made adequately respond to the majority of them. Nevertheless, I would like further clarification on one point. From my previous review: “Although the dependent variable is the detection accuracy for individual bins in cityscape images, the authors refer several times in the text to the perceived density of bins. Since the latter is never measured directly or indirectly, I think the authors should revisit the claim that changing the colour of the bag produces an increase in the perceived density of the bins. If the authors assume a linear relationship between detection accuracy and the perceived density of the bins in the visual scene, they should at least substantiate this relationship with other data or with support from previous literature, since they only have one bin per image in this experiment. Perceived density may in fact depend not only on detectability, but also on salience and other contextual factors. The same applies to the conversion between the increase in detection accuracy and the absolute number of bins in the city and consequently also to the equivalent economic savings.” As an answer to this concern in the body of the text you now report: “Assuming a linear relationship, and for illustration, we speculate that a change of bag colour from grey to red, green or blue in the city of Paris could be equivalent to installing up to 8,370, 9,537 or 13,600 additional bins, respectively.” Which is admissible in my opinion. However, In the abstract the sentence at lines 20 – 22 the sentence is formulated in a different way, leading to the impression that this is a result of the study. “..assuming a linear increase in detection, we illustrate that this change could be equivalent to installing up to 8,370 bins in the city of Paris, in terms of perceived density.” Also at lines 106 – 110: “We then convert the effect to a measure of perceived bin density and approximate the equivalent number of real bins that would have to be added in the streets of Paris to achieve the same effect..” The calculation of the “the equivalent number of real bins” still puzzles me, because in some contexts it is presented as a result of the study when in my opinion it is speculative reasoning. The linear function for the conversion here is just assumed (as you state at line 410). There is no evidence for the fact that this relationship should be linear, not even support from previous literature. Changing the colour of the bag as demonstrated in your study increases bin detection when the observer 1) is actively looking for the bin in the images 2) the image is presented for a limited amount of time. In most real-life situations, the time to visually scan the environment is not limited to a few milliseconds. When time pressure is low or absent, the advantage given by colour (or another feature that attracts attention in a bottom-up manner) will be smaller much smaller than then what found in your study. The speed accuracy trade-off in visual search is a well-known phenomenon, with reduced time pressure the accuracy will increase also for the hard serial scanning and the advantage given by bottom-up cues will be reduced. The increase in single bin detection you found in your images cannot therefore be linearly translated into perceived bin density in an ecological context where the time constrain is much less stringent. Consequently, the equivalence between the increase in detection at your task and the number of bins installed under ecological conditions is purely speculative. Unless you have a way to substantiate (with data or citations) the existence of a linear relationship between single bin detection in your experiment and perceived bin density under real-life conditions, I would ask you to rephrase or remove from the text all sentences (including those in the abstract) related to the claim of equivalence between perceived density and the number of bins that would need to be installed to achieve a similar effect such as on line 313 (similar to the addition of 13,600 new bins). Reviewer #4: This is an interesting article that merits publication, provided appropriate changes are made. In particular, additional details are needed regarding the participants, as well as the data analysis and findings. Furthermore, some of the conclusions go beyond what can be supported by the findings. More information should be provided regarding the participants who were included and excluded. Participants were retained if they responded in at least 70% of the trials (and met other inclusion criteria), but a 30% missing data rate seems quite high. What was the average rate of missing data? Could an argument be made for treating the trials with no response as misses (when a trash bag was present) or correct rejections (when no bag was present)? How might this have affected the d' values? Studies 1 and 2 had far more females than males, while Study 4 showed the opposite trend. Were these gender imbalances the result of excluding more participants from one gender than the other, or did they simply reflect differences in the rates at which the two genders volunteered to participate? The authors chose not to exclude participants who described themselves as having color blindness (which should be described in the paper as "anomalous color vision). They claimed this would increase the generalizability of the findings, but males are much more likely to have anomalous color vision than females. Combining this with the gender imbalance of the studies means that ignoring gender and self-reported anomalous color vision in the analyses can actually reduce generalizability. The solution would be to include self-reported anomalous color vision as a covariate (although many people are not aware they have anomalous color vision), or testing the data for gender differences. The manuscript provides very few descriptive statistics. Perhaps these could be provided in the OSF repository. In particular, hit and false alarm rates for each condition should be reported. Furthermore, d' values can only be calculated when hit and false alarm rates are greater than 0% and less than 100%. Were rates of 0% or 100% obtained for some participants in some conditions? If so, how often? What corrections were used to calculate d'? In Study 1, the false alarm rate for calculating the grey bag d' is the same as the false alarm rate for calculating the red bag d'. Because of this, when the paired t-test was conducted, the false alarm rate drops out and the t-test is based entirely on the grey and red hit rates: d' difference = z(Red hit rate) - z(FA) - [z(Grey hit rate) - z(FA)] = z(Red hit rate) - z(Grey hit rate) This points to one of the issues in extrapolating from the d' values to the equivalent number of trash bins: The false alarm rates are ignored entirely in that calculation. Furthermore, d' is a nonlinear variable that is difficult for most people (including policy makers) to understand. There is certainly tremendous appeal in an alternative metric that is more easily understood, such as the equivalent number of trash bins. However, it is a huge leap to jump from changes in d' to equivalent numbers of trash bins (and to jump from increases in the number of trash bins to decreases in littering, as previous reviewers have noted). It might be better to convert the d' values into estimated areas under the received operating characteristic (ROC). Think of the ROC area in relation to a task in which participants see two photographs. One contains a trash bag (of the color under study) and the other does not. The participant's task is to identify the picture that contains the trash bag. If the trash bag is easy to see (as in the catch trials) performance will be 100%. If the trash bag is virtually impossible to see the participant must guess and performance will be at the level of chance: 50%. To convert d' into RC area estimates, use the formula provided by Macmillan (1993) in Keren and Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues: ROC area = inverse-z[ d' ÷ sqrt(2) ] This formula predicts an ROC area of 87.8% for the red bags in Study 1 and 82.8% for the grey bags. Both bags have reasonably good saliency; performance is well above the chance level of 50%. Performance is 6% better with the red bag than with the grey bag. That may indeed be a notable increase in saliency, but it's a major leap to conclude that this is equivalent to a 28% increase in the number of trash bins. That simply wasn't tested. Study 3 seems very much out of place and isn't even mentioned in the Abstract. If it is retained (which I do not recommend) it needs to cite literature on how policy makers reach decisions -- and there needs to be a discussion explaining why the results from the participants (who are probably not policy makers by profession) can be generalized to actual policy makers. The authors have responded to many of the comments made by previous reviewers. However, there is surprisingly little mention of the need to conduct a field study to validate the findings. It's one thing to present photographs on a computer screen to participants who are instructed to find trash bins in those photographs; it may be entirely different to have people in natural settings decide what they're going to do with their litter. The studies reported by the authors are a good start, but there needs to be better recognition of their limitations. One minor point concerns the descriptions of the participants in Study 2. The second set of statistics presumably applies to Study 2.B, but this is not indicated in the text. ********** 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 Reviewer #4: 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-21-08195R2A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streetsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abdel Sater, thank you again for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by the Reviewers and given their reports, we feel that your revision substantially improved the manuscript but it still does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. We invite you therefore to submit a revised version of your work that addresses the points raised by Reviewers. In your revised version, please make sure to carefully address each point raised in Reviewers' comments, especially, concerning the statistical and technical aspects of your work as mentioned in comments of Reviewer 2 below. Please submit your revised manuscript within six months fom this date as afterwards, any revision has to be considered as a new submission. 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:
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. Thank you for considering PLOS ONE for reporting your research. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sasha Alexander N. 'Sasha' Sokolov, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (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: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #2: The authors have put considerable effort into revising the manuscript “A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streets” and addressing my previous comments and concerns. The conducted research is now reported in a more concise and clear manner, and elaboration around relevant background literature (e.g. nudging) as well as study limitations have been included. Therefore, the rationale as well as practical implications of the research are now presented in a more sound manner, and overall the authors have made a stronger case for the relevance and significance of their research to the field of environmental psychology. However, some questions still remain surrounding the statistics, and some minor points regarding written expression have been listed in my comments below. Therefore I have recommended minor revisions. Whilst this has improved significantly, the main area that still needs work is the reporting of the statistics. First, there is confusion on the chosen post-hoc analysis for Study 2a and b (row 330 onwards). From my understanding, after doing a 3x2 ANOVA, they examined the interaction further by running 3 separate 2x2 ANOVAS. I’m not convinced this has achieved their goal and still leaves questions on where the significant interaction lies. I’d recommend doing Simple Effects Analysis, e.g. comparing the three studies for the grey condition – so not statistically testing an interaction, but looking at a main effect of study but just on the grey condition (based on Fig 4, I suspect there will not be any differences) and then again for the 3 colours (of which I suspect some clear effects). This would lead to a much clearer and simpler narration of your findings (i.e. the studies found participants responded the same for the grey conditions, but there was a difference in colour…). The initial ANOVA was also not fully reported. As well as reporting the interaction, it is important to also report the main effects (e.g. study and colour). Second, the reporting of the ANOVA for Study 3 is unclear and needs further revision. E.g. the interaction and main effects need to be spelled out fully (row 381-382). Third and finally, the effect sizes need to be checked. This recent addition does make the paper stronger and clearer for the reader to follow, but the values are questionable. In the footnote, it implies Cohen’s dz is being used yet the text just notes d (and not dz). This needs to be explicit. For example, why is Cohen’s d not appropriate here (of which, should be under the value of 1)? If sticking with Cohen’s dz, the results are incorrect. I copied the footnotes’ formula, but did not replicate all of the reported findings. This needs to be checked. In terms of minor points: - Abstract, row 17: would be useful to clarify “trash can detection rates”. - Row 56 & 60 -> unsupported claim needing a reference (even is this is not publically available, a personal correspondence reference is needed). - row 65 ->: The authors write: “we ask whether an increase in the visual saliency of bins can work as a substitute to adding bins”, but they have not compared these two strategies. I suggest rewording this part for clarity. - row 68 ->: references to “a number of studies” are needed. - Row 189 -> unsupported claim needing a reference - Row 199 -> the numbers still do not add up (203 females + 104 males = 307, not 308). As noted in the previous review, if there is a respondent who didn’t state their gender, this needs to be explicit. - Row 259-260 -> unsupported claim needing a reference - row 262 ->: explanation of how ROC was estimated and why could go in the Method section. - Row 297 -> could state “As applied in Study 1, trails for which…” to emphasise continuity between studies. - Rows 318-319 -> be consistent in decimal places (e.g. should the SDs have .00 added to them to be in-line with the M units?) - row 350: should read “Study 3”. - Row 351 -> “replicated the study” – this is confusing as three studies have previously been reported. This could be rephrased to “replicated the design as used in the previous studies…” - Throughout -> as above, the manuscript often refers to “the Study” (e.g. row 65 & 396) yet 3 studies are reported. Rephrase (e.g. “this paper”?) - Throughout -> ensure spelling is consistent (E.g. US spelling – color; or UK spelling – colour) - Throughout -> check formatting (e.g. unnecessary spacing row 311, missing full stops row 385, paragraph spacing) Reviewer #3: I believe that the manuscript in its current form reflects the standards of PLOS ONE, and I recommend its acceptance. Reviewer #4: This submission addresses the concerns I had regarding previous versions. I have only a few suggested changes, all of them minor. The participants were asked whether or not they had colour blindness, but the proper term is anomalous color vision. I would suggest using the term anomalous colour vision, and explaining (in parentheses) that participants were asked if they had colour blindness. This applies to Lines 203 and 302, and the footnote on page 15. In Lines 267-268, readers might confuse the explanatory statistics (ROC area of 0.6) with the study findings (ROC areas of 87.8% and 82.8%). I suggest rephrasing the text using the actual study findings. For example, for the red bag the ROC area of .878 indicates that participants would were 87.8% accurate in identifying the presence of red bags. There are a few minor mathematical inconsistencies that should be addressed (unless they are due to rounding issues). On Line 268, the two ROC areas differ by 5% rather than 6%. On Line 376, the d’ for blue bags appears to be 40% higher than for grey, not 39%. On Line 383, the ROC areas appear to be 9.0% higher for blue than for grey, not 8.9%. In the Discussion, very briefly discuss the possibility of policy makers having concerns about increasing the saliency of the bags, especially in areas of Paris that target tourists. It may be that a conscious decision was made to select an “invisible” bag color so as not detract from the visual surroundings. In the Supplementary material, add information about the number of participants excluded for each reason in each study. Finally, there are some minor typographic corrections. In Line 204, “of the declared” should read “of them declared.” On Line 262, delete the quotation at start of the sentence. On Line 255, round the mean to 1114 (to maintain same level of precision as the mean reaction time for red bags). ********** 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: Yes: Giulio Contemori Reviewer #4: 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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-21-08195R3A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streetsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abdel Sater, thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by two Reviewers who both have mentioned a considerable improvement of the manuscript, we feel that some additional work is still required for your paper to fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised, in particular, by Reviewer 2 (see below) regarding statistical and technical aspects of your work. Please submit your revised manuscript within six months from this date as thereafter, any revision has to be considered a new submission. 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:
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. Thank you for choosing PLOS ONE for reporting your research. Kind regards, Sasha Alexander N. 'Sasha' Sokolov, 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (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 #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #4: No ********** 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 #4: 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 #2: The authors have revised their manuscript “A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streets” as per my previous comments. My comments regarding the reported statistics have now been addressed, and the authors have provided clarifications to some of the issues I raised previously. I have a few additional suggestions regarding the results reporting as well as a few points regarding written expression. After these have been addressed, I feel this is appropriate to be accepted for publication. Well done. The minor points (row numbers refer to the tracked changes document): Introduction: - rows 47 – 48 : “increase in the number of bins might increase litter in the presence of litter in the environment” -> Rewording suggested for clarity. - Rows 95-97: update to a more relevant example or remove All Method sections - Provide a brief justification of the target sample size. Each study had a very specific sample size, considering the researchers paid for this amount, an explicit rationale is needed in why they asked Prolific for each sample size All Results sections - Ensure formatting of the results is consistent throughout the paper (e.g. the letters should be italicised, but the numbers not, p value should be reported fully unless < .001 [row 335+]; all decimals should be the same e.g. to 2 decimal places) - Provide a recap summary of the main take home finding(s) for each study before moving on to the next section. Just needs to be 1-2 sentences. Methods (Study 1): - rows 258 – 259: “The difference between mean discriminability in the two colour conditions” should be rephrased as “The difference in mean discriminability between the two colour conditions” for clarity. Methods (Study 2): - rows 324-327: statements need to be supported with reference(s). Results (Study 2): - row 371 onwards: When reporting the results from the mixed model ANOVA, the dependent variable should be stated. - rows 399 – 401: I would suggest moving this part about the Study 2 -specific ROC results before the mixed ANOVA. In this way all Study 2 -specific results are grouped, ensuring a more logical flow. - row 425: can omit “also”. Methods (Study 3): - No colour blindness rates reported for this sample. Could state that this data could not be collected. Results (Study 3): - e.g row 436 onwards: Should clearly state what the dependent variable was, e.g. “… the effect of changing the colour from grey to blue on d’ was greater when…”. - row 471 onwards: “increasing the saliency of bins can decrease littering might entail esthetic costs…” should be reworded for clarity (also esthetic -> aesthetic). - rows 494 – 495: “In all these cases, the bin is at the same distance in the eye-catching condition and in the control condition but littering rates are different.” -> Not clear whether this refers to Studies 1 – 3 or to the existing studies reviewed just before. - row 508: Should be “colours”. - row 508: Omit “Therefore” to avoid repetition. Reviewer #4: The use of italics on lines 338 and 348-351 differs from the use of italics elsewhere in the manuscript. Also, line 429 is missing a word -- or perhaps "can" should be replaced with "to." ********** 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 #4: 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. |
| Revision 4 |
|
A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streets PONE-D-21-08195R4 Dear Dr. Abdel Sater, thank you for your efforts with the final round of revision. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now 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. Thank you again for choosing PLOS ONE for reporting your work. Kind regards, Sasha Alexander N. 'Sasha' Sokolov, 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 #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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #2: No ********** 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 ********** 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: Overall, this paper has evolved nicely through the revisions. All previous proposed revisions have now been addressed and I am happy for it to be accepted. I did notice some grammatical mistakes following the latest revisions (e.g. the sentence "... using outcome variances computed in the pilot study over 100 participants" doesn't follow and may be missing a word; the summary statements should be in past tense; "can might" within "is important to note that increasing the saliency of bins can might entail aesthetic costs") however the next stage should capture these. Well done team, its a lovely paper ********** 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 ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-08195R4 A zero-cost attention-based approach to promote cleaner streets: a Signal Detection Theory approach in Parisian streets Dear Dr. Abdel Sater: 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. Alexander N. Sokolov 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 .