The impact of the digital economy on creative industries development: Empirical evidence based on the China

Xiaodi Zhao; Lei Shen; Zhengyun Jiang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299232

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2023
16 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - JOANNA ROSAK-SZYROCKA, Editor PONE-D-23-30135The impact of the digital economy on creative industries development: empirical evidence based on the ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shen, 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 Dec 31 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, JOANNA ROSAK-SZYROCKA, Assistant Professor 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This research was funded by the Shanghai Municipal Financial Support Fund for Promoting the Development of Cultural and Creative Industries. [grant numbers:2022020027].” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. [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: No 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: 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: 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: 1. The aim of the paper is (lines 111-114) " The aim is to investigate the relationship between digital economy and creative industries and validating the mediating effect of innovation efficiency on them. If the mediating effect of innovation efficiency can be empirically validated, then it is theoretically possible to answer the important question of how the digital economy promote the development of creative industries. " 2. Two hypothesis have been formulated. 3. Point 6 - conclusion and discussion covers 6.1. Conclusions and 6.2. Policy implications. First there is no discussion and moreover discussion should be as separate point; it could also contain limitations and direction of future research; Conclusion should also present the application of this research or theoretical and practical implication of this research. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I have found your work as being very interesting. Few minor comments: 1. In Table 2 you have mentioned the sub-indexes you used for building digital economy index, but I think you should present more in detail the exact way you have aggregated these sub-indexes for building the digital economy index. 2. Please correlate your results with the findings of previous studies. 3. Add some limitations and directions for further research at the end of Conclusions. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299232.r001
Revision 1
19 Dec 2023 Author Response Title: The impact of the digital economy on creative industries development: empirical evidence based on the China Response to the reviewers Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers, Thank you for allowing a revision and resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments. We extend our sincere gratitude to you for your encouraging words and invaluable suggestions that have significantly contributed to the improvement of our paper. We are uploading: (a) our point-to-point response letter to the comments, (b) a revised manuscript, (c) an updated manuscript with highlighted changes according to reviewer notes. Please find attached the response to the queries of the reviewer and editor. We have addressed all concerns and double checked the syntax and expressions along the paper. Best Regards, The authors Answers to questions 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reply: Thank you for your comments. This paper primarily investigates the impact of the digital economy on the development of the creative industries. In terms of methodology, our approach is scientifically sound and reasonable, as evidenced by the following aspects: (1)In the paper, we proposed the research framework of the article through sufficient literature review and theoretical analysis, meanwhile, in order to select the econometric model suitable for the research topic and hypotheses, we used multiple validation. This is done as follows: firstly, the Hausmann test was conducted on the model using Stata17 software, and based on the test results, the fixed effects panel model was selected. Subsequently, time effects were taken into account in the fixed-effects model, for which the joint significance of all annual dummy variables was tested, and the results showed that the p-value was less than 0.01, so that the original hypothesis of "no time effect" was strongly rejected and the model was considered to include time effects. Therefore, this paper uses a two-way fixed effects model that considers both time and individual effects. and clustering robust standard errors to eliminate the effect of heteroskedasticity on the model. A detailed description of the steps involved in the design of the technology has been added to the paper (lines 359-367), and to facilitate your reading, we have excerpted the relevant portion from the paper as follows: �“Before estimating the model, we conducted a Hausman test using Stata 17 software to determine whether to use a random effects model or a fixed effects model in this paper. The results of the Hausman test indicated that the fixed effects model is more suitable for the research design. Subsequently, within the fixed effects model, we considered time effects. To examine the joint significance of all yearly dummy variables, we conducted a test and found that the p-value was less than 0.01. Therefore, we strongly rejected the hypothesis of "no time effects" and concluded that the model includes time effects. Then, this paper uses a two-way fixed effects model that considers both time and individual effects. and clustering robust standard errors to eliminate the effect of heteroskedasticity on the model.” (2)The data sources of the paper are authentic and reliable, and we have provided detailed explanations and descriptions of the data source within the paper. (lines 342-356). (3)All the conclusions in the paper are determined based on the econometric results, ensuring scientific rigor and verifiability. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reply: The paper conducted appropriate and rigorous statistical analysis. Prior to the statistical analysis, the model underwent F-tests and Hausman tests to select the appropriate model. In addition to the baseline regression, various methods were employed to ensure the robustness of the empirical results, including instrumental variable approach, heteroscedasticity tests, outlier removal, and variable substitution, thereby safeguarding the stability of the experimental findings. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Reply: The data for this study were sourced from government public databases, and detailed descriptions of the data sources have been provided in the paper. (lines 342-356) 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reply: Yes 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Reviewer Point P1——The aim of the paper is (lines 111-114) " The aim is to investigate the relationship between digital economy and creative industries and validating the mediating effect of innovation efficiency on them. If the mediating effect of innovation efficiency can be empirically validated, then it is theoretically possible to answer the important question of how the digital economy promote the development of creative industries. " Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The topic of this research is the impact of digital economy on creative industries. Through theoretical analysis, we constructed a research framework and based on it, we used panel data to establish an econometric model for empirical analysis (lines 204-207; lines 312-333). The baseline regression results show that the digital economy can improve the development of creative industries. And for every 1 percentage point increase in the development level of the digital economy, the development of creative industries can be enhanced by 0.452 percentage points (lines 359-392). The results of the mediating effect model test show that innovation efficiency plays a partial mediating role between the digital economy and the development of creative industries, i.e. the digital economy can support the development of creative industries by promoting innovation efficiency (lines 442-453). Reviewer Point P2——Two hypothesis have been formulated. Reply：Thanks for your recognition and valuable feedback. This thesis proposes two research hypotheses based on theoretical analyses (lines 209-252), which are: 1. Digital economy is conducive to the improvement of creative industries development. 2. Innovation efficiency mediates the relationship between digital economy and creative industries development. Through empirical analysis in the article, we have validated the above two hypotheses, and the conclusion shows that the digital economy has a significant promoting effect on the development of the creative industries, while innovation efficiency plays a partial mediating role between digital economy and creative industries development. Reviewer Point P3——Point 6 - conclusion and discussion covers 6.1. Conclusions and 6.2. Policy implications. First there is no discussion and moreover discussion should be as separate point; it could also contain limitations and direction of future research; Conclusion should also present the application of this research or theoretical and practical implication of this research. Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made careful revisions to the conclusion and discussion sections. We summarize them here. �“The following are some notable contributions. On the theoretical level, we have provided a detailed analysis of the concept and connotation of the creative industry. Furthermore, we have developed an index system for measuring the development level of the regional creative industry, which serves as a valuable reference for quantitative research in the field of creative industries. Moreover, we have made a novel attempt to incorporate innovation efficiency into the framework of digital economy and creative industry development research by exploring the impact of the digital economy on the development of the creative industry. This study provides a valuable reference for the application of digital economy and technology in cultural-related industries, expands the scope of the influence of the digital economy in industrial research, and fills the gap in existing research. In terms of practice, the creative industry plays a critical role in sustainable economic development as a green industry. This is particularly important for China, which is currently undergoing economic transformation. The shift towards a development path that emphasizes a higher proportion of cultural and creative industries in the economic system has become an important choice for sustainable green development. Against the backdrop of the digital age, our exploration of the impact mechanism of the digital economy on the creative industry provides theoretical guidance for the government in formulating industry development policies, guiding the role of the digital economy in serving industry development, and promoting the enhancement of the country's cultural soft power. This study will help the government formulate targeted policies to support the development of the creative industry and provide scientific basis for creative enterprises to proactively integrate into the digital era for their own development. 6.2. Limitations and future research Some research limitations should be noted here, as is the case with any empirical work. Firstly, the sample size of this study is limited. The research conducted in this paper combines theoretical assumptions with empirical testing. Due to data availability and usability considerations, the empirical analysis was conducted using data from 2012 to 2019 at the provincial level. Future research can consider using more recent data and expand the scope of the study to the city level to explore the impact of the digital economy on the creative industries. Secondly, the article only considers the mediating role of innovation efficiency in the relationship between the digital economy and the creative industries. However, in the context of the digital age, there are multiple factors that influence the development of the creative industries. Future research can consider exploring additional potential mechanisms, such as the impact of government policies, regional economic development levels, infrastructure construction, urbanization, and other factors. This would further investigate the mechanisms through which the digital economy affects the creative industries. Additionally, the measurement indicators for the digital economy and creative industries constructed in this article are based on existing research literature and development levels. As the digital economy and creative industries continue to evolve, their concepts and forms of expression are also constantly changing. Future research can develop a more comprehensive evaluation indicator system according to the development of the digital economy and creative industries.” Reviewer #2: I have found your work as being very interesting. Few minor comments Reply：Thanks for your recognition of our work. We have made point-to-point responses to your concerns in this letter and further improved the manuscript in the revised version. Reviewer Point P1——In Table 2 you have mentioned the sub-indexes you used for building digital economy index, but I think you should present more in detail the exact way you have aggregated these sub-indexes for building the digital economy index. Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this section, we mainly referred to existing research literature on the evaluation indicator system of the digital economy and the selection of sub-indexes. We also provided a detailed description of the sources and collection process of sub-indexes data. To better illustrate the process of indicator selection, we have made modifications to the description in this section. In order to facilitate your reading, we have excerpted them here. �“This paper adopted the development level of the digital economy as the core explanatory variable. The digital economy, in essence, is the result of the deep integration between the traditional economy and digital technologies [46]. It represents a series of economic activities that are based on digital technology, primarily mediated by digital platforms, and supported by digital empowerment infrastructure [47]. The measurement system of digital economy development no uniform standard, but it has been continuously studied by scholars. Referring to other scholars' research on digital economy measurement [6,9,13], we investigate the digital economy from four dimensions: Digital Infrastructure, Digital Industry Development, Digital Innovation Capability and Digital finance. At the same time, proxy variables are selected for the above dimensions. Among them, digital infrastructure refers to the digital technology-enabled software, communication facilities, computer hardware, and other components that serve as the foundation for ensuring the operation and development of the digital economy. Therefore, referring to existing research [13], digital infrastructure is represented by internet penetration rate and mobile communication coverage rate, and measured by the number of Internet users per 100 people and the number of cell phones users per 100 people. The development of the digital industry mainly considers the level of development of core digital technology industries. Draw on existing research findings [9,13,46], digital industry development is represented by internet industry output, information industry development and e-commerce business development, and measured by the telecommunications business per 10,000 people, percentage of employees in information transmission and software and information technology services, postal revenue per capital. Digital innovation capacity refers to the potential for digital technology-driven regional innovation and development, mainly represented by digital innovation element support and digital high-tech penetration, and measured by government science and technology expenditure and the degree of penetration of digital high-tech applications in listed companies. Digital finance is represented by the digital financial inclusion index (DFII), compiled by Peking University and Ant Financial jointly, which is measured by the breadth of coverage, depth of use, and digitization of digital finance [48].” For the measurement methods and data sources of the aforementioned sub-indexes, this study provides a detailed explanation in the data description section (4.3) below. To facilitate your reading, we have included the relevant content for your review. �“The explained variable of this study are creative industries, The data comes mostly from the China Statistical Yearbook of Culture and Related Industries, the official websites of provincial governments and statistical bureaus. The explanatory variables and control variables are mainly obtained from China City Statistical Yearbook, EPS Database, China Statistical Yearbook and statistical yearbooks of each province. The digital financial inclusion index is measured using the China Digital Financial Inclusion Index released by the Digital Finance Research Center of Peking University in cooperation with Ant Financial Services Group [48]. In particular, referring to other scholars' practices, the digital high-tech penetration mainly calculated the keywords of integrated circuit, internet of Things, big data, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, block chain, ICT industry, smart city, mobile Internet, data mining, digital trade, mobile payment, satellite navigation, electronic commerce, internet plus, data visualization, virtual reality and other keywords appearing in the business scope of listed companies to reflect the penetration level of high technology, and then aggregated to the provincial scale. Due to the wide variety of indicators involved, all indicators are dimensionless in order to eliminate the influence of the indicators on the evaluation results caused by the different units of measurement. ” Reviewer Point P2——Please correlate your results with the findings of previous studies. Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have added this content to the conclusion section and excerpted it below for your review. �“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to determine whether the digital economy can promote creative industries development. Both the digital economy and the cultural and creative industries are part of the global economic transformation, and they are also the focus of academic research and government intervention [51,52]. Treating these two economic entities separately may lead to problems [2]. Some ongoing studies have also attempted to establish the link between these two economic entities. The attention given by Duffy and Baym to the connection between information platforms and the creative economy provides insights for the cross-development of digital research and the creative economy [53,54]. Additionally, research in specific domains such as online gaming has laid the foundation for further cross-study of the digital economy and the creative industries [2]. The findings of this study further demonstrate, from an empirical research perspective, the impact of the digital economy on the development of the creative industries. It also explores the preliminary pathways through which the digital economy influences the creative industries, deepening our understanding of the relationship between the two economic entities. Furthermore, this study expands the analysis of both entities from theoretical and case study approaches to econometric modeling.” Reviewer Point P3——Add some limitations and directions for further research at the end of Conclusions. Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have added this content to the conclusion and discussion section and excerpted it below for your review. �“6.2. Limitations and future research Some research limitations should be noted here, as is the case with any empirical work. Firstly, the sample size of this study is limited. The research conducted in this paper combines theoretical assumptions with empirical testing. Due to data availability and usability considerations, the empirical analysis was conducted using data from 2012 to 2019 at the provincial level. Future research can consider using more recent data and expand the scope of the study to the city level to explore the impact of the digital economy on the creative industries. Secondly, the article only considers the mediating role of innovation efficiency in the relationship between the digital economy and the creative industries. However, in the context of the digital age, there are multiple factors that influence the development of the creative industries. Future research can consider exploring additional potential mechanisms, such as the impact of government policies, regional economic development levels, infrastructure construction, urbanization, and other factors. This would further investigate the mechanisms through which the digital economy affects the creative industries. Additionally, the measurement indicators for the digital economy and creative industries constructed in this article are based on existing research literature and development levels. As the digital economy and creative industries continue to evolve, their concepts and forms of expression are also constantly changing. Future research can develop a more comprehensive evaluation indicator system according to the development of the digital economy and creative industries.” We are grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to the overall improvement of our paper. We hope that the revised version meets the standards of the journal and aligns with the expectations of the readers. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299232.r002
6 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - JOANNA ROSAK-SZYROCKA, Editor The impact of the digital economy on creative industries development: empirical evidence based on the China PONE-D-23-30135R1 Dear Dr. Shen, 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, JOANNA ROSAK-SZYROCKA, Assistant Professor 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 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 is ok. However the article is very much rebulit. The purpose has been clearly described and this same with all methodology steps. Reviewer #2: No further comments. The comments were properly addressed. I believe that the paper can be published in the 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299232.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Feb 2024 Acceptance Letter - JOANNA ROSAK-SZYROCKA, Editor PONE-D-23-30135R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shen, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. JOANNA ROSAK-SZYROCKA Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299232.r004

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 .