ARIAS: An AR-based interactive advertising system

Qiujiao Wang; Zhijie Xie

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285838

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 2, 2023
15 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Alberto Cannavò, Editor PONE-D-22-35281 ARVS: Design of an interactive advertising system PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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. The reviewers have found minor issues in the manuscript. More specifically, the reviewer 1 asks for clarifications of terms used in the manuscript and more discussions regarding the comparison of the proposed system and the state of the art. The reviewer 2 has some concerns regarding the statistical analysis which was found not rigorous and appropriate. Moreover, the reviewer requests to define the acronym ARVS, provide clarifications regarding the use of the system and discuss the learning curve of using the proposed interaction method. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alberto Cannavò 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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 7. We note that Figure 12 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. 8. 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 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 9. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: After reading the paper and considering the reports by the reviewers, I think that the authors should implement the revisions requested in order for the paper to be considered for publication in the journal. The reviewers have found minor issues in the manuscript. More specifically, the reviewer 1 asks for clarifications of terms used in the manuscript and more discussions regarding the comparison of the proposed system and the state of the art. The reviewer 2 has some concerns regarding the statistical analysis which was found not rigorous and appropriate. Moreover, the reviewer requests to define the acronym ARVS, provide clarifications regarding the use of the system and discuss the learning curve of using the proposed interaction method. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Abstact Line 1: describe the meaning of ARVS Authors could describe the Mixed Reality and make a comparison between this system and theirs Authors could describe potential applicability of such system and the reason why it is different with the other systems. Reviewer #2: The submission titled “ARVS: Design of an interactive advertising system” discusses a methodology to produce a virtual cube, akin to an augmented reality hologram, that shows advertising videos to better grasp customer attention. The authors use established external libraries that identify and transform individual video frames, and then implement hand gestures to incorporate human interactions. A user’s fingertips serve as a mouse pointer and hand gestures are used to translate, rotate, and zoom the virtual cube. Overall, this was a well-written manuscript, the data algorithms were adequately explained, and the significance of the work was properly highlighted from a psychological standpoint. I only have a few comments listed below. 1. The acronym ARVS should be defined. I assume it stands for augmented reality video system? Is this a novel name that the authors created? 2. Is there an indication given to the user for which state is currently selected (e.g., translation, rotation, zooming, etc.)? Otherwise, can virtual buttons be displayed to the user to facilitate interactions with the virtual cube? 3. How steep is the learning curve to use the gesture interactions? If there is a new customer that has not used ARVS, would they become too confused to benefit from the virtual cube advertising? There would be a great benefit to test the system on users that ranges of prior experience with ARVS. 4. More explanation is required to explain how gestures are tracked. Is there another camera directly across the user? Or could there be a camera placed behind the user? How adaptable is the system to augmented reality headsets that can similarly record hand gestures and/or gaze data? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285838.r001
Revision 1
14 Mar 2023 Author Response ================================== ================================== Comments from the academic editor: The reviewers have found minor issues in the manu-script. More specifically, the reviewer 1 asks for clarifica-tions of terms used in the manuscript and more discus-sions regarding the comparison of the proposed system and the state of the art. The reviewer 2 has some con-cerns regarding the statistical analysis which was found not rigorous and appropriate. Moreover, the reviewer re-quests to define the acronym ARVS, provide clarifica-tions regarding the use of the system and discuss the learning curve of using the proposed interaction method. Response: Thank you very much. We have made corresponding modifications, as detailed below. ================================== ================================== Comments from the Reviewer #1: --------------------------------------------------------------- Line 1: describe the meaning of ARVS Response: Thank you very much for all of your helpful suggestions. We named the system 'A video system based on augmented reality' at first, and ARVS was its acronym. Since it has been upload to the web site of GitHub and open with a unique URL, we haven't changed its name later. Now we change it to ARIAS to avoid ambiguity and highlight its interactivity, and explained it in the title and abstract of the manuscript. (Line2-3, Line11-13) --------------------------------------------------------------- Authors could describe the Mixed Reality and make a comparison between this system and theirs Response: We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of AR in this system compared to MR, which with the similar theoretical technology with AR. The Similar sugges-tions are given by the other reviewer, and we added the ‘System features’ section for comprehensive descripting (Line567-603) --------------------------------------------------------------- Authors could describe potential applicability of such system and the reason why it is different with the other systems. Response: This article has four keyword: Advertising, Augmented reality, Gesture and In-teractive, we found none effective comparable system in GitHub and Web of Science with any three of them, including the use of their synonyms and acro-nyms. (Perhaps this system will become the compared object if it can be pub-lished). Therefore, this system was compared with the traditional way of adver-tising. We analysed the potential applicability of such system according to the results. (Line516-524, Line558-566) ================================== ================================== Comments from the Reviewer #2: --------------------------------------------------------------- The submission titled “ARVS: Design of an interactive advertis-ing system” discusses a methodology to produce a virtual cube, akin to an augmented reality hologram, that shows advertising videos to better grasp customer attention. The authors use estab-lished external libraries that identify and transform individual video frames, and then implement hand gestures to incorporate human interactions. A user’s fingertips serve as a mouse pointer and hand gestures are used to translate, rotate, and zoom the vir-tual cube. Overall, this was a well-written manuscript, the data algorithms were adequately explained, and the significance of the work was properly highlighted from a psychological standpoint. I only have a few comments listed below. Response: Thank you very much for praising our work and for all of your helpful suggestions. Your questions will be answered in detail below. --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The acronym ARVS should be defined. I assume it stands for augmented reality video system? Is this a novel name that the authors created? Response: Yes, we named the system 'An augmented reality video system' at first, and ARVS was its acronym. Since it has been upload to the web site of GitHub and open with a unique URL, we haven't changed its name, even though it has been added the function of gesture manipulation later. Now we change it to ARIAS to avoid ambiguity and highlight its interactivity, and explained it in the title and abstract of the manuscript. (Line2-3, Line11-13) --------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Is there an indication given to the user for which state is cur-rently selected (e.g., translation, rotation, zooming, etc.)? Oth-erwise, can virtual buttons be displayed to the user to facilitate interactions with the virtual cube? Response: Thanks again for the helpful idea. We have always felt that these states and instructions are easy to remember from our own point of view, but ignored that it may be a challenge for a customer who has just contacted the system for a few minutes. Now, the virtual buttons and text indica-tion were both given to the user. (Line418-428,Fig 11) --------------------------------------------------------------- 3. How steep is the learning curve to use the gesture interac-tions? If there is a new customer that has not used ARVS, would they become too confused to benefit from the virtual cube adver-tising? There would be a great benefit to test the system on users that ranges of prior experience with ARVS. Response: We invited 22 people who did not contacted the system to participate in the test of the system. Each person tested the system 6 times, and then obtained the number of errors and the time taken for each test. We drew the error curve and time taken curve, the results then were discussed according to the curve characteristics. (Line466-515, Line526-557) --------------------------------------------------------------- 4. More explanation is required to explain how gestures are tracked. Is there another camera directly across the user? Or could there be a camera placed behind the user? How adaptable is the system to augmented reality headsets that can similarly rec-ord hand gestures and/or gaze data? Response: For the gesture tracking, it work with the help of the library MediaPipe, by which the gesture data is inferred from the image based on deep learning. We just mentioned briefly (Line297-303) because the working principle is described in detail in the 31th reference. So there is just only one camera required by this system. (Line593) For the system adaptable to headsets, the similar suggestions are given by the other reviewer, and we added the System features section for comprehensive descripting. (Line567-603) ================================== ================================== Journal 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 Response: We have checked it and corrected some errors. --------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Response: We have noticed the guidelines on code sharing and we think our code has met it. --------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: We are sorry for the wrong financial disclosure before. The authors received no specific funding for this work. Please help us change the online submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Response: We add the minimal data set to GitHub since the minimal data set is public as a part of this system. The URL has been declared in the manuscript. --------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Response: The two accounts have been associated. --------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. Response: The ethics statement has been moved to the Methods section. --------------------------------------------------------------- 7. We note that Figure 12 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. Response: We have got a written informed consent. --------------------------------------------------------------- 8. 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 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: We have noticed this error and it has been revised. --------------------------------------------------------------- 9. 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. Response: We checked the list and changed the style to 'Vancouver' and made some minor adjustments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285838.r002
11 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Alberto Cannavò, Editor PONE-D-22-35281R1ARIAS: An AR-based interactive advertising systemPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: All the issues have been addressed in the revised version of the paper. A final remark is raised by a reviewer that regards a figure in the manuscript. Considering the reviewer's comment I recommend accepting the paper after a minor revision. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by May 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alberto Cannavò Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): According to the reviewers' comments, the majority of the concerns have been answered/addressed. A final comment regards the format of Figure 10 that should be fixed. [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: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: The Authors has replied to all comments satisfactorily and for this reason I suggest accepting the MS. Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately answered/addressed my concerns. My final comment is to appropriately format Fig. 10 with axes labels. ****** 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 ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285838.r003
Revision 2
13 Apr 2023 Author Response Academic Editor: All the issues have been addressed in the revised version of the paper. A final remark is raised by a reviewer that regards a figure in the manuscript. Considering the reviewer's comment I recommend accepting the paper after a minor revision. According to the reviewers' comments, the majority of the concerns have been answered/addressed. A final comment regards the format of Figure 10 that should be fixed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: Thank you very much for considering accepting our manuscript. The Fig.10 as well as Fig.12-15 has been formatted as the comment of Reviewer #2. ============================================================ Reviewer #1: The Authors has replied to all comments satisfactorily and for this reason I suggest accepting the MS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: Thank you very much for suggesting accepting our manuscript. ============================================================ Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately answered/addressed my concerns. My final comment is to appropriately format Fig. 10 with axes labels. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: Thank you very much for your kind comment. The Fig.10 as well as Fig.12-15 has been formatted with axes labels. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285838.r004
3 May 2023 Decision Letter - Alberto Cannavò, Editor ARIAS: An AR-based interactive advertising system PONE-D-22-35281R2 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Alberto Cannavò Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): According to the comments of the reviewers, all the comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. For this reason, I suggest accepting the manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Authors has replied to all comments satisfactorily. The Ms improved markedly and for this reason I suggest accepting it. Reviewer #2: This version is sufficient 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: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285838.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Alberto Cannavò, Editor PONE-D-22-35281R2 ARIAS: An AR-based interactive advertising system Dear Dr. Wang: 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 Ph.D. Alberto Cannavò Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285838.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .