PONE-D-23-37771Corythauma ayyari (Insecta, Heteroptera, Tingidae) depends on its host plant to invade EuropePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guilbert,

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: 

• I invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2024 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,

Faham Khamesipour, 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that Figures 1, 2, and S1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, and S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Line 1-2: I don't think that this title can be chosen based on the results presented. Invasion is also not a good term to use here (it might not happen). Spread or proliferate might be better. The fact that this species depends on its host plant seems to be known so the title does not really present the results of the study.

Line 15: Invasiveness would need to be defined as a term or concept with references, ”potential to become widespread” might be better.

Line 20: What kind of modeling was done? Ensemble forecasting?

Line 20-22: Rephrase the sentence and specifically mention your species. Otherwise it reads as if it has not been considered before with other insect plant association. Or is this something really new?

Line 26: I don't think this is relevant in your study. Please give some general citations here, maybe specifically for disruptions caused by insects and/or plants.

Line 41: Maybe it would be nice to introduce the concept of pest species (in the native range) and invasive species (non-native range) once.

Line 46: Please add: introduced via trade “to Europe”. These Jasmine species are just considered a non-native species which has value as an ornamental plant and therefore should not be damaged by C. ayyari (which would be the “bad” invader)?

Line 49: Are they a real problem in the native range, thus considered a pest species? If so, why are there so little occurrence records of C. ayyari? Due to no one sampling it?

Line 53: Which other crop species could this be?

Line 61: The interesting bit is that biotic variables are rarely taken into account because the relationship to a species’ occurrence is often not entirely known. But in the case of plant and parasitic insect, the host plant’s (or many host plants’) occurrence(s) and (in)directly its climatic requirements should be the main factors that determine whether the insect survives, unless there are some other environmental factors that are different for the insects survival and the plants survival, e.g. predator of the insect. I am not sure looking into all future distribution model for the 4 Jasmine species alone is necessary for this study in such detail (see suggestion to cut part in the Results below).

Line 62: If they are strictly dependent on the host plant, why would you model only with bioclimatic variables at all? I would expect strong correlations between host plant and some climatic variables if you put them together into one model.

Line 67: Please be more specific what these studies showed.

Line 68-74: As said above, why model it without host plant at all if it is strictly dependent on it?

Line 78: I think it is debatable whether you want to call it invasion if it is considered a pest species in its native range already although there are so little number of occurrence points from its native range, which of course might be due to a sampling bias (too little sampling effort). Would the sampling (and any occurrence records) of C. ayyari not be correlated with Jasmine species?

Line 86: See comment before. Do you know whether sightings of C. ayyari were made on plants?

Line 116: Are Jasminum species already considered in equilibrium because they were introduced long time ago and are not spreading any longer in Europe?

Line 155-157: If C. ayyari cannot survive without its plant host, this analysis is not really useful.

Line 164-165: That seems very little occurrences to base models on overall. Can you comment on the minimum number of occurrence records necessary for the different models you used? If this is accounted for by using the TSS and different thresholds are calculated in each model irrespectively of what the number of occurrence records is, please describe it in more detail.

Fig.1: There is no co-occurrence in the native range? I suppose sightings were made on other host plants than Jasminum species. Do you know on what plants sightings (occurrence records) of C. ayyari were made?

Do these species not actually overlap in the native range in Asia?

Line 172: Please explain the Boyce index as a means to validate model results in more detail.

Line 170-225: This is just describing the Figures in the supplementary material and the correlation tables (which should also go into the supplementary material) focusing on the bioclimatic variables and current and future distribution for the plants and C. ayyari separately. The main focus should rather be on comparing the current and future models excluding or including these Jasmine species as biotic variables when projecting current and future distribution C. ayyari. Try to shorten it or place text into supplementary.

Line 232-236: This is the main result, incl. Fig. 2.

Line 243-244: What does “all models together” mean? The models used for the ensemble forecasting? What are these 5th, 1st and 2nd PCA components? Can you show the PCA plots?

Line 249: If this is the case, why would you expect a high invasion potential of C. ayyari due to availability of Jasmine species in Europe? Are you assuming that in the native range (Asia) they don’t overlap but in Europe they could? It seems that very little observations of C. ayyari living on Jasmine spp have been made in Asia (judging by the low amount of occurrence records on GBIF) although the insect is considered a pest species. Due to the little number of occurrences, I would also question the niche parameter calculations for C. ayyari (line 270-272). Maybe you can discuss the quality of data in the discussion.

L. 267: Could you explain the Schoener’s index meaning in more detail? When do you talk of a high overlap and a low overlap? Same for similarity and equivalency.

Line 275: What does Csa mean?

Line 278-281: It would be good to describe the life cycle of C. ayyari in more detail to see at what stage the host plant plays a role.

L 284-285: What does Aw and Cwa mean?

L. 321: Can you comment on model validation a bit more? And the data availability and how this might have influenced the projections, especially C. ayyari for which data records are very low.

L. 331-333: How reliable is it to talk of a niche switch here? How dependent is it on the host plant and how dependent on the climatic conditions?

L. 335-337: Do you want to discuss niche shift (comparing native and invaded area) of the plants as well?

L 342-344: If they are not host plants and only visited plants, could they still damage them? Have there been any experimental studies been done to test the “vulnerability” of these plants?

L 362-363: But C. ayyari is considered native in some of these regions if I understood correctly and considered a pest species. Why do you talk of its invasion in these regions then?

Reviewer #2: In the reviewed manuscript by Manon Durand and Eric Guilbert presented results of modeling the possibility of successful development of the invasive bug species of Tingidae, Corythauma ayyari in Europe depending on the distribution of its host plants, some species of jasmine.

The analysis of the possibilities of settling of this invasive species using special programs makes it possible to foresee the distribution of C. ayyari in the future. In general, the results appear to be quite reliable. However, the authors’ conclusions about the probability of significant suitability (up to 50%) for the habitat of the tropical species C. ayyari (lines in the text 205-214) in the territory of Central Europe seem unconvincing to me.

In addition, the authors' suggestion that the oligophage C. ayyari "...can damage jasmine species as well as other ornamental and/or agricultural plants, causing significant environmental and economic damage" (lines 52-44) appears to be unfounded, and this assumption follows put away

Overall, the manuscript is recommended for publication with minor corrections.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-37771R1Corythauma ayyari (Insecta, Heteroptera, Tingidae) depends on its host plant to spread in EuropePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guilbert,

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 Mar 30 2024 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,

Faham Khamesipour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I want you to respond to the comments below and revise the manuscript.

Maybe show in a PCA-plot all variables (as arrows) and their contribution, i.e. how they place along the two PCA-axes PC1 (x-axis, highest variability explained) and PC2 (y-axis, second highest variability explained).

New Table S1 in the Supplementary Material is missing.

To be corrected (Lines refer to text with Track Changes)

Line 133: since they WERE introduced

Line 140: as stated BY Jiménez-Valverde

Line 176: A niche equivalency and a niche similarity test (not tests)

Lines 311-313: It stated that C. ayyari develops at a temperature ranging from 22 and 31°C, AND a relative humidity

ranging from 86.75 to 91.88%. Adults emerge at night and mate 24 hours after emergence.

Females live between 9 to 12 days and mate WITH an average of 34 eggs.

Line 357: Jasminum in absent IN THE East of Germany (should it not say EUROPE?)

Line 368-369: Small geographic and environmental ranges CAN ALSO POSTITIVELY affect model performance

Line 423: these non-native regions

[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: All comments have been addressed.

Maybe show in a PCA-plot all variables (as arrows) and their contribution, i.e. how they place along the two PCA-axes PC1 (x-axis, highest variability explained) and PC2 (y-axis, second highest variability explained).

New Table S1 in the Supplementary Material is missing.

To be corrected (Lines refer to text with Track Changes)

Line 133: since they WERE introduced

Line 140: as stated BY Jiménez-Valverde

Line 176: A niche equivalency and a niche similarity test (not tests)

Lines 311-313: It stated that C. ayyari develops at a temperature ranging from 22 and 31°C, AND a relative humidity

ranging from 86.75 to 91.88%. Adults emerge at night and mate 24 hours after emergence.

Females live between 9 to 12 days and mate WITH an average of 34 eggs.

Line 357: Jasminum in absent IN THE East of Germany (should it not say EUROPE?)

Line 368-369: Small geographic and environmental ranges CAN ALSO POSTITIVELY affect model performance

Line 423: these non-native regions

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

thank you for your work in improving the manuscript, and for the answering questions. I have to notice that all statements in the article are justified, and the results of statistical analysis confirm the obtained conclusions. The presented study has theoretical and practical significance. I believe that the manuscript can be accepted for publication in PLOSE ONE journal in its current form.

**********

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.

Corythauma ayyari (Insecta, Heteroptera, Tingidae) depends on its host plant to spread in Europe

PONE-D-23-37771R2

Dear Dr. Guilbert,

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,

Faham Khamesipour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

**********