PONE-D-22-30426‘WE ARE AT A WAR AGAINST COVID-19’: A CORPUS-BASED CRITICAL METAPHOR ANALYSIS OF PAKISTANI NEWSPAPERSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghilzai,

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 article is interesting in terms of its content, but requires some minor revisions, as suggested by the reviewers. 

In addition to the reviewers' requests, I would invite the authors to add a table (or more) containing quantitative data, as they refer to the use of a qualitative-quantitative method of analysis in the methodology section. Furthermore, I would suggest that the authors update the bibliography, adding in the literature review section not only references to theories on the interpretation of metaphorical language, but also references to other research (and they are numerous) in which other researchers have analysed war metaphor in relation to COVID-19. At the same time, I would suggest inserting in the conclusions (or separately) a section devoted to the discussion of the results also in the light of similar analyses conducted by other scholars.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 25 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,

Ramona Bongelli, 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 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.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

5. 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. 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: Yes

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: This is well-written research. I can follow the process of data collection and analysis with ease. The research background has also been described clearly. The results are presented and discussed rigorously. I only have one recommendation though, even you have stated your research significancy in the conclusion section, if you can suggest practical benefit of your findings to related parties, such as universities, government, that would be better.

Reviewer #2: The article presents new data however the structure of the article does not follow the correct style of writing and many references are archaic.

It will be valid if the findings include statistical values of the issues 'war', (provide the numbers of percentage) of the word existence in the research.

**********

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-22-30426R1‘WE ARE AT A WAR AGAINST COVID-19’: A CORPUS-BASED CRITICAL METAPHOR ANALYSIS OF PAKISTANI NEWSPAPERSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghilzai,

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.

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

Dear authors,

the article needs further revision. Please follow the recommendations of the reviewers. In particular, please pay attention to their suggestions regarding the bibliography to be updated. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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,

Ramona Bongelli, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: The paper examine metaphors of COVID-19 in Pakistani newspapers using CMA. The paper is good but requires some modifications before it can be published in a Q1 journal. Below are my main concerns:

1) the authors state: "The main goal is to pursue the way through which the discussion of the

metaphor in language has shifted from its use as an ornamental figure, as a decorative idiom, to an

indispensable cognitive-linguistic tool that connects our cognitive and semantic domains". This has been established a long time ago! the authors need to provide a more convincing argument.

2) Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is not adopted in its original form anymore; it has been revised and refined even by the original authors themselves. What seems obvious to me is that the researchers are not keeping up-to-date with new advancements in Cognitive Linguistics, see the sources below:

Kövecses, Z. (2016). Conceptual metaphor theory. In Semino, E. & Demjén Z. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Metaphor (pp. 31-45). NY: Routledge.

Kövecses, Z. (2020). An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 112-130.

Kövecses, Zoltán. (2021). Standard and Extended Conceptual Theory Revisited: Some Definitional and Taxonomic Issues. In Wen, Xu and John R. Taylor (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 191-204). New York: Routledge.

3) The authors are just summarizing previous works on CMA without engaging in any argumentative discussion; I mean why choose CMA? what does this approach aim to reveal? I am afraid that the authors are narrating information without engaging with it, see for example:

Alnajjar, A., & Altakhaineh, A. R. M. (2023). A critical analysis of metaphors used in Arabic and English cosmetics advertisements. Kervan. International Journal of African and Asian Studies, 27(1).

Zibin, A. (2022). The type and function of metaphors in Jordanian economic discourse: A critical metaphor analysis approach. Language Sciences, 93, 101488.

4) I am astonished that through their search on papers that tackled metaphors of COVID-19 in the related literature, the researchers did not come across the following very recent studies; integrating studies that addressed the same topic but in different cultures and languages enables the authors to draw-cross linguistic implications and contribute to the filed of metaphor studies:

Rajandran, K. (2020). A Long Battle Ahead’: Malaysian and Singaporean prime ministers employ war metaphors for COVID-19. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 20(3), 261-267.

Castro Seixas, E. (2021). War metaphors in political communication on COVID-19. Frontiers in sociology, 5, 583680.

Garzone, G. E. (2021). Rethinking metaphors in COVID-19 communication. Lingue e Linguaggi, (44), 159-181.

Zibin, A. (2022). Monomodal and multimodal metaphors in editorial cartoons on the coronavirus by Jordanian cartoonists. Linguistics Vanguard, 8(1), 383-398.

Younes, A. S., & Altakhaineh, A. R. M. (2022). Metaphors and metonymies used in memes to depict COVID-19 in Jordanian social media websites. Ampersand, 9, 100087.

The authors need to cite these papers and engage in a discussion about the similarities and differences between metaphors of COVID-19 in different languages.

5) The section on 'Traditional approaches to metaphor" should be deleted. It has long been established that metaphors are not just figures of speech! that ship has sailed along time ago! the authors should try to keep up-to-date and to provide theoretical implications!

6) In the methodology section, the authors do not explain how they selected the articles? which keywords did they use? the choice of software is also not explained! the authors are obviously following a corpus-based approach but this makes no sense, since the authors did not conduct a pilot study to collect metaphor candidates and then test them against the corpus! see the following:

Zibin, A. (2021). Blood metaphors and metonymies in Jordanian Arabic and English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 26-50.

I suggest to rectify this problem, now that it is too late to do so, is for the authors to state that they followed a corpus-driven approach (see the reference above for more info). This means that entire corpus was analyzed manually then the software was used to test the frequency of the metaphors.

7) How did the authors extract the conceptual metaphors from the metaphorical expressions?! see the following:

Steen, G. (2007). Finding metaphor in discourse: Pragglejaz and beyond. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación/Culture, Language and Representation, 5: 9-25.

The authors did not also explain how they avoided data analysis bias?!

8) In the data analysis section, the authors need to provide the examples clearly. For example, Figure 1 is non-readable! where are the metaphors?

9) The discussion section needs to be enriched with relevant studies and a more in-depth discussion of the implication should be provided, see the references provided above.

10) I am surprised that the author conducted no inferential statistical analysis to determine which sub-domains under the war source domain are used the most. This type of analysis can enhance the quantitative analysis done in this paper.

11) The paper should be proofread for language errors.

Reviewer #4: Before submitting my review, I would like to apologize and acknowledge that due to certain problems, my review was completed hastily.

This is a good paper with a very interesting topic, but it can be improved by employing the following comments.

The structure of the paper should be as follows: abstract, introduction, CMT and medical discourse, method and material, data analysis, conclusion.

The literature of the paper should be related to metaphor in medical discourses, and other papers related to politics and etc., should be removed.

Why do the authors focus only on the metaphors that are based on the concept of war? why do they ignore other important metaphors of corona discourse in Pakistan?

They should justify these points in their paper.

I think the authors can also explain other metaphors in the medical discourse of Corona in Pakistan.

The authors say that we study war metaphor, but they should also explain that what is the target domain of war as a source domain?

The concepts such as victory, soldier, enemy and so on are only elaborations of a general conceptual metaphor like controlling corona is a war.

However, when they present these source domains, they should also mention the target domains of them.

They mention the source domains (such as victory) but they don’t discuss the target domains.

In the paper, they should present a finalized table which includes all the source domains and target domains.

The authors can also use MIP to recognize the metaphorical expressions in their corpus.

The authors should clearly write metaphor formula for all the source domains like X IS Y: Corona is enemy

Medical treatment is war

Doctor is a soldier

I think the authors could also explain all the conceptual metaphors of corona in this corpus, but I leave it to them to decide about it or to justify their decision.

**********

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 #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.

PONE-D-22-30426R2Metaphorical Framing of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan: A Corpus Driven Critical Analysis of War Metaphors in News MediaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghilzai,

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 article is undoubtedly much improved as a result of the additions made. 

I would still ask you to fix a few small things:

1. Carefully review the cited bibliography and numbering. For example, missing from the bibliography is Philips 2017, which you cite in the text
2. the word Table is sometimes used in capitals and sometimes in lower case. Specifically, Table 3 is presented in the text as 03. You write that there is Table 2 in the appendix and instead it is numbered as 1. I would also ask you to move Table 2 in the text so that the reader is facilitated. 
3. The methodology section does not state how many researchers analysed the corpus to identify metaphors, nor does it state whether or not an index of agreement was calculated after an individual analysis or whether the researchers instead collectively examined the articles and discussed the identified cases. I would specify this.
4. Finally, I would pay attention to verb tenses. I imagine that the paper was written some time ago (when the pandemic was still going on) and in some sentences it still seems to be. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 11 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,

Ramona Bongelli, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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-22-30426R3Metaphorical Framing of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan: A Corpus Driven Critical Analysis of War Metaphors in News MediaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghilzai,

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.

Dear authors,

thank you for making the suggested changes. 

With respect to the concordance index, there is no need to explain how it is calculated, because those who use it know how it is done. 

In my previous comments, I asked whether it was calculated or not, but there is no need to include it if it has not been calculated and the agreement was reached by discussing the doubtful cases collectively.

K is calculated immediately after the individual analysis, and not after collaborative discussion (as it sounds from your description) to see if the grid used is shared or if it necessary to modify it. You do not calculate K after the doubtful cases have been discussed because obviously at that point the agreement index will be equal to 1 (i.e. 100%).

I would therefore ask you to fix this section by simply saying that after an initial individual analysis, you discussed the doubtful cases and came to an agreement. That is also perfectly fine. What I asked for was to specify how the agreement was reached.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 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,

Ramona Bongelli, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

Metaphorical Framing of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan: A Corpus Driven Critical Analysis of War Metaphors in News Media

PONE-D-22-30426R4

Dear Dr. Ghilzai,

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,

Ramona Bongelli, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: