PONE-D-23-10265Sailing success of four Viking navigation strategies: often-navigating sailors can use the Sun or sky polarization, while seldom-navigating ones should rely on sunshine only in order to maximize the successPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horvath,

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:

In this round, the review was made by a total of 4 reviewers. Out of them Reviewers 1 to 3 are new reviewers. While, Reviewer 4 was the previous reviewer.  Seeing the reviews of the reviewer, I propose to authors to strictly follow the followings.

1. Please revise the title of this manuscript. It is very lengthy.

2. Authors must include a pseudo code of their developed method.

3. Authors must improve the resolution of all figures as per the reviewers concerns.

4. Authors must include a mathematical analysis in this manuscript.

5. Authors must improve the resolution of figures provided in the manuscript.

6. Authors must include the latest references in revised version of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 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,

Zahid Mahmood Jehangiri, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. 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):

As per the reviewers comments, authors must do the following.

1. Please revise the title of this manuscript. It is very lengthy.

2. Authors must include a pseudocode of their developed method.

3. Authors must improve the resolution of all figures as per the reveiwers concerns.

4. Authors must include a mathematical analysis in this manuscript.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: My comment is to improve the quality of the figures and article structure. Figures are blur. Also, the article is under review and it already contains the reviewers comments and response which is beyond my understanding. Moreover, too lengthy table captions are usually not good in research articles. Being out of my research portfolio and scope, I cannot fully understand this article.

Reviewer #2: My few suggestions are listed below.

1. Title of this manuscript is vague. Authors are advised to shorten the title.

2. Contributions are clear.

3. Authors should number each section. Currently, it is missing.

4. Please put a table for "Comparison of Viking navigators" and then explain. Current description is vague.

5. In Discussion section, please discuss your findings in the form of bullets. Currently, it is messed up.

6. In Conclusion, please remove all bullets and describe in a paragraph and also add one more sentence for future work.

7. In Methods, authors should include a pseudocode of their developed method. Currently, it is messed up and very hard for the reader to maintain flow. A pseudocode will give readers a fair insight about the developed algorithm.

8. Overall, novelty seems high and write up is good. Authors must adjust my above changes.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all issues and comments raised by reviewer 3. Therefore, I don't have further comments.

The paper title is too long. This should be concisely described. I would also like to suggest improving figure quality. The reference are also quite old. only of the article is referred from 2022.

Reviewer #4: The authors have adequately revised their work as per the third and fourth reviewers' reports. Since the authors have requested the fourth reviewer to quote a paragraph on the Indian Ocean sailing techniques, they are given the permission to do so. The reference information on the said citation is as follows- Goswami, Chhaya. 2015 Malam Ni Pothi: Treatise on Kachchhi Navigation Techniques. Publisher- Darshak Itihas Nidhi, Mumbai. (Summarized transcription and a critique of the original sailing manuals written in old Gujarati.)

The authors have mentioned that it is little known that how exactly the Vikings sailed in the night. On this I suggest them to consider a separate investigation based upon the cutting edge field research, consulting fragmented unconventional archives (log book or any such written accounts), oral narratives, to trace out or guesstimate the patterns and rhythms of their lunar sailings.

I also have a suggestion for the authors regarding their long title, if they wish to change or modify accordingly.

"Speedy Bearings to Slacked Steering: Mapping the Navigational Patterns and Motions of the Viking Voyages"

Please note it is just a suggestion.

********** 

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

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.

Speedy Bearings to Slacked Steering: Mapping the Navigation Patterns and Motions of Viking Voyages

PONE-D-23-10265R1

Dear Dr. Horvath,

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,

Zahid M. Jehangiri, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Since authors have addressed all the concerns that were raised by the reviewers in two rounds of this manuscript. Therefore, I am happy to accept this manuscript in its current form.

Reviewers' comments: