https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9179-7494
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 21, 2023 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-23-07973Do clouds in landscape photographs influence people’s preferences?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Schirpke, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 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:
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, Chaohai Shen 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 2. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file 3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Authors, I have received all the required reviewer reports. I agree with the comments from the reviewers and I would like to invite you to revise the manuscript accordingly. Thank you! Sincerely, [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ********** 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** 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: I'm not able to see where they mention a repository and I don't see their data attached as supplementary, so I answered no to that question above. I may simply have just missed something. For the authors: This well-crafted and explained study explores the impacts of clouds in landscape photographs in mountainous settings, using paired original and manipulated photos. The combination of simulated eye-tracking, photo structural analysis and landscape metrics provide a rich assessment of when clouds matter and when they do not. I do not have the statistics skills to assess their quantitative methods, so hope another reviewer is doing that work. But as a landscape researcher I can take important methodological advice from this work. A few details of the survey are unclear. Could the authors confirm if survey respondents received all 58 images, or a subset of them? That is a large set of photos to review for any one respondent. The time that the survey took suggests the respondents would spend only 5-10 seconds per photo, which seems to be a short time to carry out such cognitive tasks over such a number of them. I also wonder if the survey respondents were incentivized at all? I can’t imagine getting so many people to do a survey of this type without offering academic credit, or a chance to win something. Were the students in any particular program, and how were they invited? Demographics were clearly collected, but are not reported. Such details are generally disclosed, even though the demographics are not the key interest in this survey. I also enjoyed learning about the 3M-VAS software, but I think it is important to provide more about how the software works. Looking at the webpage it clearly has an AI engine, but can the authors provide a brief explanation of this software (as far as is known, given its commercial status) so that we can assess replicability? Is the program using a similar process as is described elsewhere as ‘salience mapping’? If so, it may be appropriate to connect those literatures. For instance, in the discussion the authors mention the potential value of such methods in understanding the visual impact of wind turbines, and this has been done with salience maps. (e.g., Mohammadi, Mehrnoosh, et al. "A saliency mapping approach to understanding the visual impact of wind and solar infrastructure in amenity landscapes." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 41.2 (2023): 154-161.) A little more detail would also be useful in the section discussing the regression analysis. Can the authors describe exactly what the dependent variable is? Is it A-B? The graphics are largely effective and well-designed, but Figure 2 needs a little more work. The A and B becomes confusing because there are two uses of these in the figure, for the two parts of the figure and for the cloud and no-cloud image versions. In black and white, the colours for A>B and A=B are identical, and the link to the border of the images is lost. I would suggest bars instead of a pie, extending beside each of the photos, with labels alongside, to completely disambiguate. This would also remove the need for this figure to be seen as two things, as the elements would be entirely integrated. Language is clear. Only one “und”, and minor issues like “ration” instead of “ratio” in one spot, and “contribute” instead of “contribution” through Table 1. There is an indication in the cover materials that the authors have made their data fully available, but I’m not able to see where it is attached or pointed to in a repository. My apologies if I simply missed this. Reviewer #2: Dear Colleagues, I have read and reviewed your article titled, Do clouds in landscape photographs influence people’s preferences? The research is nicely done and I myself has learned a lot as well. As this is one of my favourite research areas and a discipline, I am familiar with, I would like to make some comments about the manuscript and other aspects. I am grateful for the authors for their attempt in this study which would contribute highly to the landscape and perception related research in the domain. Some of these comments might be not 100% relevant but I would like to suggest those to improve the structure and the overall quality of your paper. The title of the manuscript seems a bit too simple. There is only one question as the title. If we incorporate some extra phrase to provide more insights to the manuscript following the question, then I think it would be better. EX:- , Do clouds in landscape photographs influence people’s preferences?; A study in XXXX, or else. The structure needs a bit more arranging. The titles, Collection of variables, Photo-based survey, Study design can be all made into one topic of "materials and methods". The content in the statistical analysis can be shifted under methods/ results appropriately, Irrespective of the suggested rearrangement, I will comment based on the existing topics (by the author) Abstract Try to be more emphasized on the study and be more focussed. This abstract focusses more on the results which is a good point. But the concluding sentence can be more made useful. Think if some one wants to read your whole article, the abstract is what gets their attention. So try to attract them with the concluding sentence. Line 14 – 16 – Rewrite the sentence better. Write the purpose of the study more focussed in the abstract. Introduction This is okay, but I would like to have some more insights to the clouds in the intro. Shapes of the clouds and some other information you have discussed in the discussion part seems to be fitting more in the introduction. The clouds and its visible aspects in the landscapes is an interesting part related to the perception research. If you could include those information, then it would be more interesting for the readers. Line 77 – Sentence should start with a new line. Photo based survey Line 94 – Give credits to photoshop Line 102 – it took about 5-10 minutes ........ – this part is too casual. May be the estimated time to fill the questionnaire? Line 103 – What is the process of selecting the respondents? A proper sampling technique? Why 10 point likert scale? Why not an odd number (with a mid point - neutral response)? Why 10 points? Please explain why these were selected for the study. What is the basis for selecting the photographs? Please explain why? The general preference of the sample is justified using previous studies. How can you be sure the previous samples reflect general conditions? It is true that high numbers correspond to the normality. Is this comparison to previous studies necessary? Think again. Ethics statement This in the middle of the manuscript? Better to include in the body without having a separate section Line 124 - Adult persons or Adults? Collection of Variables Give credits to 3M-VAS software. This information is missing in the manuscript. For the softwares used (manufacturer, country) should be mentioned in parentheses line 136 – 3 -5 seconds? photo content analysis – How the structural composition was estimated? Using which software or how? Please explain properly. We estimated the composition of the landscape in terms of distance zones (i.e., near zone, middle zone, far zone). An illustration of how this was done would be better. Statistical Analysis Why backward stepwise linear regression was used? Explain Results Line 205 – R2 Line 236 – und? Line 238 – seconds? Line 238 – give credits right next to the photographs in the description. The red and yellow markings in the photographs? What are those? Each photograph has two analysis shown right? Explain out outcome is this? What these numbers represent. May be I am not quite familiar with the software, I find it difficult to understand. But better if we can include them to increase the readability and for greater exposure. Where is the conclusion? A paper with no conclusion does not sound right. The paper is interesting and a great attempt to contribute to the existing literature. Congratulations on the future as a scholar. Regards! Reviewer #3: Title Do clouds in landscape photographs influence people’s preferences? Summary The authors present a study examining how clouds, and a host of other independent variables, might affect preference ratings for landscape views. Results indicate differences between images with and without clouds, and according to the proportion of sky depicted. The paper attempts to relate these findings to a cultural ecosystem services framework. Overall comments Whilst I endorse the authors’ focus on this overlooked component of landscape evaluation, in its current form the paper does not provide adequate information about the study design or its participants, and reporting of results requires substantial additional information. The introduction, and materials and methods, should be improved to help the reader understand the visual stimuli being tested and the demographic characteristics of participants. The limited information presented here renders the study impossible to reproduce. The results are difficult to follow and interpret, and seem to combine empirical findings with visually inferred observations. It is difficult to assess the validity of the statistical approach with the information provided. This section needs careful rewriting to present the results in a way that readers can both understand and suitably interrogate. The authors must also consider publishing their image sets, analysis scripts, and raw data on the Open Science Framework (or similar platform) such that their findings can be reproduced. Specific comments #1 The intentions of the study could be clearer in the abstract. For example at line #13 “Usually, pictures with similar weather and light conditions (i.e., blue sky) are used to reduce the potential influence on landscape preferences” should be rephrased to explain what potential confounders ‘blue sky’ conditions are mitigating. #2 The introduction would benefit from further information on the different forms clouds can take. The example photographs included in the paper depict various types of cumulus clouds, were these the only cloud formations included across the images used? For example, participant responses to cirrus stratus or altocumulus may have varied substantially compared to cumulus clouds. Moreover, why did the authors choose the cloudscapes included in this study over other formations? #3 An overview of the methods typically used to assess landscape preferences in photographs would help the reader understand how aesthetic value is usually measured, and therefore how this study's methods might be applicable to other work in this field. #4 The discussion on study design should include an explanation of how the authors arrived at a suitable sample size. Was a power calculation performed before recruitment? What sample sizes are common in other studies that assess landscape aesthetics? #5 What were the characteristics of the participants? The authors note that the survey was distributed to undergraduates and their family members, but no information is provided on who actually took part and therefore who their findings relate to. Please include a breakdown of participant demographics, with n’s for each grouping specified. #6 The authors note that the survey took 5-10 minutes to complete (line #102). This description would benefit from further details. Where did participants complete the study, at home or in a controlled laboratory setting? On what kind of device? How were the images displayed and for how long? Was completion time monitored, and any quality control in place to prevent people from ‘speeding’ through without paying attention? Were participants primed as to the purposes of the study? Virtual eye tracking was used but few details are provided on how and why this method is appropriate, how does it compare to actual eye tracking? On this point, the authors simply refer to “Schirpke et al.” but I suggest that the reader should be presented with these points without having to refer to another study – were the elements of that study followed exactly? How do the methods here deviate? #7 At line #108 the authors refer to “two former surveys” which the reader assumes are those referenced previously. If this is the case, it should be clarified which studies these are with appropriate referencing and details where necessary. For example, why is it appropriate to compare preference scores from this study to those mentioned? #8 At line 152 the authors note that “areas hidden by vegetation, buildings, or mountains, were excluded from further analysis.” The reader is curious why it is appropriate for these potential confounding elements to be omitted from the analysis. The authors should provide justification for this approach in the manuscript. #9 Why it is acceptable to replace missing values with mean values (line #167)? Did this method apply to all IVs? Could the authors explain this in a way such that a reader who is unfamiliar with statistical methods can understand the steps taken. #10 At line #176 the authors mention tests for normality but do not provide results from these tests until line #206. I suggest clarifying these outcomes here or at least acknowledging that tests were passed and reported later. #11 To aid interpretation of the results, Figure 2 would be clearer if both A and B images were shown for each example. At present the comparisons being assessed are not clear. #12 Tabular data underpinning Figure 3 should be displayed. Importantly, what manipulation to the data has been applied to create this figure? Are these mean preference scores across groupings? Are these differences across groups statistically significant? If so, what test has been applied to determine this relationship? #13 Furthermore, it is not clear how the percentages reported in line #196 have been deduced. Further clarification is required to help these results be interpreted and reproduced. #14 Table 2 is difficult to interpret in its current form since IVs have been described by their coded descriptors (which the reader can only interpret by cross referencing with Table S1 in supplementary materials). I suggest these are replaced with more easily interpretable labels, for example, “I_HP1..n (%)” could read “Sky within hotspots (%)”. Furthermore, significant coefficients in table 2 might be highlighted in bold to improve readability. #15 Figure 4 shows some intriguing patterns, but I found it very difficult to follow the descriptions provided in lines #212 to #230. Are the authors referring to results from table 2? If so, it would be useful to report coefficients and p-values in these descriptions so the reader can understand the relationships being described. More importantly, these descriptions appear to refer to images grouped according to whether they do or do not contain clouds. Were two regression models run based on these categories? The IV in the table simply refers to % cloud cover, and clouds Yes/No as a binary variable is not included nor as an interaction term. Greater clarification is required on how the authors can qualify statements such as “Pictures with clouds that had higher preference scores comprised on average more hotspots” and “preferences for landscapes without clouds were often related to the presence of a large top hotspot”. Have these been empirically tested or visually inferred from the data? #16 At line #220 the authors suggest that “a high proportion of background (EZ4_P1..n) also reduced the negative effects of anthropogenic structures in the foreground (Eart_P1..n)”. How was this dependency tested? No interaction effects between IVs are reported. #17 Likewise, at line #299 the authors report that “the hotspots in the more attractive image pair are located more towards the sides than in the center.” Was this empirically tested or is this an observation based on one or more photos? #18 I am unclear on how the 40% threshold for cloud cover noted in line #246 has been derived. The discussion section should not be the first place results are reported. #19 More importantly, and in relation to comment #2, nimbostratus clouds are mentioned in line #247, and single cumulus clouds mentioned in line #249. This is the first time cloud type has been introduced and suggests substantial heterogeneity in the clouds depicted. More information is required on the composition of these cloud forms in the introduction and materials and methods, how has this been accounted for as a potential confounding factor? #20 The authors present a quantitative analysis of how clouds might impact preferences for landscape scenes, and attempt to relate this to cultural ecosystem services. However, as hinted at by the phrase ‘cultural’, these values can be highly subjective. It would be valuable to the reader to understand the limitations of this approach, particularly with respect to the fertile literature on subjective vs objective aesthetic assessments. ********** 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: 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 1 |
|
PONE-D-23-07973R1Assessing landscape aesthetic values: Do clouds in photographs influence people’s preferences?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Schirpke, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 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:
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, Chaohai Shen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: This paper has been improved with revision. I have only a few remaining comments to further strengthen or clarify the work. 139 I acknowledge that there is no set scale for assessing landscape preferences, and this may be an issue of translation, but I am finding least preferred and most preferred somewhat nonsensical for photos explored individually. Least and most are comparative terms. Could the authors check the best translation, if formal equivalence exists, as I’m sure this must have made more sense in German. I’m finding the ‘intensity of visual elements’ variable a bit tricky to conceptualize, and indeed quite a few of the eye-tracking variables are a bit hard to conceptualize. Is it density or concentration or diversity? The Table 1 isn’t always helpful, given that the units are mostly described as percentages but the descriptions include things like areas and contributions to probability. 235-238 is not easy to understand and I think these steps should be understandable without looking at the Schirpke reference cited. Some of the results could be clearer if some additional terms could be added, for instance in line 311 add “with clouds” after “lower”, or in line 323, add “in the” before “pair” (if I’m interpreting correctly). Additionally 325 add “with cloud removal after “photos” at the end of that line. At the end of 345 you indicate a high intensity of visual elements was associated with pictures without clouds. I can’t seem to find the supplemental data reporting this. I see the difference score regression. Maybe include the relevant stats in the body and clearly note where reported where those models can be found. Discussion starts with reporting on a hypothesis that I don’t remember being declared earlier. Small things but still worth mentioning. 80-81 This sentence seems tautological, maybe drop the first part 89-93 Given the paragraph that comes before it seems unclear, but somewhat likely that clouds will alter preferences. This paragraph doesn’t seem to acknowledge the one before. It could also be done by noting that it is not just “attracting attention” that affects preferences but the emotional impact and mood that clouds can bring to an image. 143 use “assessed” rather than obtained 156 Is the estimated time to complete the researchers’ estimation or based on actual completion? 402 using “were” reads as if you found it rather than Svobodova. Maybe “have been”? 433 and elsewhere Using “percentage sky” reads overly technical for discussion. Percentage “of” sky Reviewer #2: I appreciate the effort you have put in revising the manuscript answering all the comments from authors. I only have one small doubt to clarify, Starting from line 138 - You have mentioned that ....... to decide whether their preference is positive or negative But you have included the likert scale as 1 - least preferred (which is the lowest level of preference and obviously not a negative response). Please explain this incase I misunderstood! Line 209 - 3M-WAS Line 213 - ...... their eyes on in the initial..... ??? Other than that all the comments are addressed. Great work. Reviewer #3: I commend the authors on their revised manuscript. They have addressed all reviewer comments and the resulting paper is much improved and offers a valuable contribution to the field. I have just one comment I think it would be worth addressing before recommending publication: The manipulated images are, in some cases, very obviously edited. The blue sky has little texture, and the lighting of the foreground landscape does not match that provided by a typical blue sky. It would be valuable to mention this limitation, and its possible effects on ratings; could participant ratings have reflected (at least partly) negative reactions to Photoshopped scenes? ********** 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 ********** [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 |
|
Assessing landscape aesthetic values: Do clouds in photographs influence people’s preferences? PONE-D-23-07973R2 Dear Dr. Schirpke, 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, Chaohai Shen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-07973R2 Assessing landscape aesthetic values: Do clouds in photographs influence people’s preferences? Dear Dr. Schirpke: 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. Chaohai Shen 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 .