Approaching future rewards or waiting for them to arrive: Spatial representations of time and intertemporal choice

Daniel Fletcher; Robert Houghton; Alexa Spence

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301781

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 13, 2023
27 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Yan Wang, Editor PONE-D-23-41597Approaching future rewards or waiting for them to arrive: Spatial representations of time and intertemporal choicePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fletcher, 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 Apr 12 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, Yan Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. We note that Figure 2 (bottom left), 2 (top left), 2 (top right), and S2 Stimuli 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 Figure 2 (bottom left), 2 (top left), 2 (top right), and S2 Stimuli 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/ 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: 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: Comments are as follows: 1. The paper needs to be streamlined and highlight your work. The current description is too redundant. 2. Need more references for work in the past 3 years. 3. What is the contribution of this paper? need to be emphasized. 4. It is best to put pictures together with corresponding content to more clearly demonstrate the work of the paper. Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a study investigating how spatial primes (ego-moving vs. time-moving perspectives) influence temporal discounting, perceived wait time, and perceived control in decision-making. Here are my observations and suggestions for improvement across various aspects of the manuscript: Clarity and Structure The manuscript is well-structured, with clear sections delineating the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. The logical flow from the introduction of spatial metaphors and temporal perspectives to the hypotheses and methodology is commendable. However, the discussion section could benefit from a more detailed comparison with previous studies, especially in areas where your findings diverge. Argumentation Your argumentation is strong, especially in linking spatial primes with temporal perspectives and their potential effects on decision-making. The literature review effectively sets the stage for your hypotheses. Nonetheless, the discussion could further explore the implications of the findings, particularly the lack of significant effects of the spatial primes on temporal discounting and perceived wait time. Discussing alternative explanations and potential moderating variables could enrich this section. Methodology The methodology is robust, with a clear description of the participant selection, spatial prime manipulation, and measurement of temporal perspectives and discounting. The pre-registration and power analysis enhance the credibility of the study. However, consider discussing the limitations of the spatial prime manipulation, especially regarding the ego-moving condition's effectiveness, and how it might be improved in future studies. Key Findings It's crucial to emphasize the novelty of your findings in the discussion, especially the absence of significant effects from spatial primes on temporal discounting and perceived wait time. This contrasts with some previous literature and invites further investigation into the conditions under which spatial primes might affect temporal perspectives and decision-making. Future Directions The manuscript hints at future research avenues, such as interventions to increase perceived control over time to reduce temporal discounting. Expanding on these suggestions by proposing specific experimental designs or theoretical models could make this section more impactful. Technical Corrections Ensure consistency in referencing figures, tables, and supplementary materials. Double-check that all mentioned resources are correctly cited and accessible. Consider shortening some of the more detailed explanations in the results section to improve readability, summarizing key points more succinctly. Overall Impression The manuscript contributes valuable insights to the literature on temporal perspectives and decision-making, despite some findings being contrary to initial hypotheses. Its strengths lie in the rigorous methodology and the thoughtful consideration of alternative explanations for the observed results. Addressing the suggested improvements could enhance the manuscript's impact and provide clearer directions for future research in this intriguing area of study. ****** 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: Yes: Wonsok Frank Jee ******** [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.0301781.r001
Revision 1
19 Mar 2024 Author Response Dear Dr Wang, We would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript, and the reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. We believe that addressing these comments has resulted in a significantly improved manuscript. The primary changes to the manuscript were to enhance the discussion section by including more detailed comparisons of the findings with prior research and to discuss possible reasons for the null experimental effects. We have also made text changes throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity, and supplied replacement figures to be used for illustrative purposes where potential copyright issues were raised. Responses to each editor and reviewer comment are provided below. We look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely, Daniel Fletcher (Corresponding Author) Editor: Journal Requirements Data Availability: ======================================================================== Author Comment: The dataset is now available from UK Data Service data repository using the link below: https://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/856861/ ========================================================================= 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. ========================================================================== Author Comment: We have updated the title page to match the PLOS ONE style template. ========================================================================== 2. We note that Figure 2 (bottom left), 2 (top left), 2 (top right), and S2 Stimuli 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: ========================================================================== Author Comment: We have now supplied replacement images for Figure 2 (top left, top right, bottom left) for illustrative purposes and removed S2 Stimuli from the submission. We have updated the Fig 2 caption to read: “Fig 2. Illustrative example of a trial from ego-moving (top left), time-moving (top right), and control (bottom left) conditions. Original spatial prime materials used in the study cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” ============================================================================ 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. =========================================================================== Author Comment: We have added the following information caption added to the manuscript: “S1 Appendix. Supplementary analyses” In-text citations refer to S1 Appendix and a specific table within this document where applicable. =========================================================================== 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. ================================================================================= Author Comment: We have made formatting changes to the references where required and added DOIs to aid accessibility . We have added 3 references in response to Reviewer 1’s second comment and an additional 5 references to strengthen our arguments. We have also changed the order of some references to match changes to the order of in-text citations. The reference list remains otherwise unchanged. The added references are as follows: Pfaltz MC, Plichta MM, Bockisch CJ, Jellestad L, Schnyder U, Stocker K. Processing of an ambiguous time phrase in posttraumatic stress disorder: Eye movements suggest a passive, oncoming perception of the future. Psychiatry Research. 2021;299: 113845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113845 Maglio SJ. Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents. Consumer Psychology Review. 2020;3(1): 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1057 Baron S, Everett BC, Latham AJ, Miller K, Tierney H, Veng J. Moving ego versus moving time: investigating the shared source of future-bias and near-bias. Synthese. 2023;202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04286-0 Lee A, Ji L-J. Moving away from a bad past and toward a good future: Feelings influence the metaphorical understanding of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2014;143: 21–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032233 Lempert KM, Phelps EA. The Malleability of Intertemporal Choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2016;20(1): 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.005 Gu Y, Zheng Y, Swerts M. Which Is in Front of Chinese People, Past or Future? The Effect of Language and Culture on Temporal Gestures and Spatial Conceptions of Time. Cognitive Science. 2019;43(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12804 Boroditsky L, Fuhrman O, McCormick K. Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition. 2011;118(1): 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010 Du W, Green L, Myerson J. Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Discounting Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards. The Psychological Record. 2002;52: 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395199 Reviewer 1: 1. The paper needs to be streamlined and highlight your work. The current description is too redundant. =========================================================================== Author Comment: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to streamline the paper by removing redundancy. We have reduced text in the Method and Results sections where possible to do so without removing detail which may be important to readers. We have also made changes to the text throughout the manuscript which we hope enhance clarity. =========================================================================== 2. Need more references for work in the past 3 years. =========================================================================== Author Comment: We have now added the following references from 2020 onwards: Pfaltz MC, Plichta MM, Bockisch CJ, Jellestad L, Schnyder U, Stocker K. Processing of an ambiguous time phrase in posttraumatic stress disorder: Eye movements suggest a passive, oncoming perception of the future. Psychiatry Research. 2021;299: 113845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113845 Maglio SJ. Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents. Consumer Psychology Review. 2020;3(1): 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1057 Baron S, Everett BC, Latham AJ, Miller K, Tierney H, Veng J. Moving ego versus moving time: investigating the shared source of future-bias and near-bias. Synthese. 2023;202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04286-0 =========================================================================== 3. What is the contribution of this paper? need to be emphasized. =========================================================================== Author Comment: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to make the contribution of the manuscript clearer. We have now updated the discussion to more clearly situate the present findings within the wider literature – particularly highlighting where the present results differ from previous research and discussing possible theoretical implications of these differences. We refer the reviewer to the Discussion section of the revised manuscript. ============================================================================ 4. It is best to put pictures together with corresponding content to more clearly demonstrate the work of the paper. =========================================================================== Author Comment: We thank the reviewer for this comment and agree this would enhance clarity in the final article. We were required to provide figures separately to the main manuscript for initial submission to PLOS ONE, though in the final article figures would appear above their corresponding caption. =========================================================================== Reviewer 2: Clarity and Structure The manuscript is well-structured, with clear sections delineating the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. The logical flow from the introduction of spatial metaphors and temporal perspectives to the hypotheses and methodology is commendable. However, the discussion section could benefit from a more detailed comparison with previous studies, especially in areas where your findings diverge. Author Comment: We thank the reviewer for these comments and the helpful suggestion to improve the discussion by including a more detailed comparison with prior research. We have updated the manuscript accordingly to include a detailed comparison between the present findings and previous research – highlighting discrepancies in results and considering possible explanations for these differences. We refer the reviewer to the Discussion section of the revised manuscript. =========================================================================== Argumentation Your argumentation is strong, especially in linking spatial primes with temporal perspectives and their potential effects on decision-making. The literature review effectively sets the stage for your hypotheses. Nonetheless, the discussion could further explore the implications of the findings, particularly the lack of significant effects of the spatial primes on temporal discounting and perceived wait time. Discussing alternative explanations and potential moderating variables could enrich this section. ============================================================================ Author Comment: We have updated the manuscript to explore the lack of significant effects on perceived wait time and temporal discounting in more detail. In particular, we consider possible reasons for the absence of significant effects, draw comparisons with previous literature, and discuss some possible moderators. We refer the reviewer to the sub-section ‘Temporal perspective and intertemporal choice in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript. ========================================================================== Methodology The methodology is robust, with a clear description of the participant selection, spatial prime manipulation, and measurement of temporal perspectives and discounting. The pre-registration and power analysis enhance the credibility of the study. However, consider discussing the limitations of the spatial prime manipulation, especially regarding the ego-moving condition's effectiveness, and how it might be improved in future studies. ============================================================================ Author Comment: We have added the following text to the discussion which outlines possible reasons the ego-moving prime was not effective, in contrast to previous research: “One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the ego-moving map navigation task in the present study required participants to process left-right spatial relationships (i.e., the direction of their next turn) in addition to front-back spatial relationships (i.e., which locations were in front/behind them on their journey). In contrast, ego-moving primes administered by Boroditsky [5, Study 1] only required participants to process front-back relationships. Since an ego-moving temporal perspective maps time onto a one-dimensional sagittal axis (i.e., past = behind, future = in front) [5], it is possible that processing lateral spatial relationships interfered with activation of the relevant spatial concepts. Furthermore, two of the ego-moving trials in the present study required participants to process left-right spatial relationships from the perspective of an arrow that was facing downwards on the screen and therefore inconsistent with their own egocentric perspective. Processing lateral spatial relationships from a conflicting perspective requires spatial perspective-taking, which is typically performed by mentally rotating the self into the to-be-adopted perspective [41]. Processing spatial relationships from a conflicting spatial perspective may have disrupted activation of an ego-moving temporal perspective, in which events are located relative to the egocentric self. It is possible that the ego-moving task used in the present study would successfully prime the intended temporal perspective if the ‘direction of next turn’ questions were omitted, since this would be more likely to facilitate activation of only the relevant spatial concepts.” =========================================================================== Key Findings It's crucial to emphasize the novelty of your findings in the discussion, especially the absence of significant effects from spatial primes on temporal discounting and perceived wait time. This contrasts with some previous literature and invites further investigation into the conditions under which spatial primes might affect temporal perspectives and decision-making. ============================================================================ Author Comment: We have updated the manuscript to highlight where the present findings differ from existing literature, and what may explain these discrepancies. We refer the reviewer to the subsection ‘Temporal perspective and intertemporal choice in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript. =========================================================================== Future Directions The manuscript hints at future research avenues, such as interventions to increase perceived control over time to reduce temporal discounting. Expanding on these suggestions by proposing specific experimental designs or theoretical models could make this section more impactful. ============================================================================ Author Comment: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have now added the following text to suggest a more specific direction for further research: “Future research could develop more detailed scale measures of perceived control over subjective time to examine correlations with psychological distance of future events and temporal discounting, in order to clarify the nature of these relationships. Additionally, experimental research could perhaps manipulate perceived control over subjective time by having participants write about a past experience in which they remember having control over time, e.g., had successfully “killed time” (vs. a control condition), before then completing an intertemporal choice task.” ============================================================================ Technical Corrections Ensure consistency in referencing figures, tables, and supplementary materials. Double-check that all mentioned resources are correctly cited and accessible. Consider shortening some of the more detailed explanations in the results section to improve readability, summarizing key points more succinctly. ============================================================================ Author Comment: We have reformatted references where required and added DOIs to aid accessibility. We have also slightly reduced text in the Results and Methods section where possible to do so without removing detail which may be important to readers. =========================================================================== Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301781.r002
22 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Yan Wang, Editor Approaching future rewards or waiting for them to arrive: Spatial representations of time and intertemporal choice PONE-D-23-41597R1 Dear Dr. Fletcher, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Yan Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301781.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yan Wang, Editor PONE-D-23-41597R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fletcher, 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. Yan Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301781.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 .