PONE-D-23-29129Are the shoulder joint function, stability, and mobility tests predictive of handstand execution?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Malíř,

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 reviewers have provided thorough reviews and highlighted shortcomings in the presentation of the work. Please address these point and in particular work on improving the coherence of the manuscript by clarifying the research questions and aims and providing justifications for choices in the methods. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 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,

Aliah Faisal Shaheen

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was supported by the Cooperatio Programme, research area Sport Sciences – Biomedical & Rehabilitation Medicine (SPOB).”

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.

6. Please include a caption for figure 2.

7. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 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].”

 2. 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.

[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: Introduction

The introduction is based on citations of old publications, ie. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 23, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35. Please rewrite the introduction, and discuss these issues in the introductory part by referring to the following article:

Puszczałowska-Lizis E, Omorczyk J. The level of body balance in standing position and handstand in seniors athletes practicing artistic gymnastics. Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics 2019; 21 (2): 37-44. DOI: 10.5277/ABB-01352-2019-02.

The study lacks of a clear aim and research questions.

Material and Methods

Please provide the sample size calculation.

What was the method of random selection? Or was this a convenience sample?

A clarification of the selection criteria would be required.

Results

Medians should be provided in the tables.

Discussion

In the Discussion, the authors present the results in the form of numerical data, which should not be the case. The Discussion is rather superficial and did not offer sufficient explanations for the mechanistic reasons behind the findings.

You should add some limitations of the study.

Conclusions

The work lacks clearly formulated conclusions. Please specify the conclusions in points as answers to the research questions.

References

The reference list contains too many old positions, ie. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 23, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 41. Please edit.

References are quoted carelessly, with errors - please correct them.

General comments to the Authors

That said, my comments are offered with the intent of helping the authors improve this manuscript. When the authors address these issues I will be able to comment definitively and make the final decision.

Reviewer #2: Presented study aimed to examine the relationship between shoulder joint mobility and stability and the quality of handstand execution among prospective PE teachers. While the manuscript has potential and deal with interesting issue, some substantial changes should be considered before publication. Most crucial, that there was about 60% participants that were unable to handstand and thus it could disturb the analysis outcome, especially that the research method (AQV and E-score) was not sensitive enough (only 4 or 5 levels?).

Please find below specific comments:

1) The introduction is to long, must be rewritten to focus on main aspects of the manuscript.

2) Page 3, line 19. The presented paragraph is redundant, it includes description that belong to the method section.

3) Page 3 line 22, wrong method of reference, also this sentence while is related to handstand, press handstand is different gymnastic elements and should not be discussed in this manuscript.

4) Page 4 line 1, wrong reference method, this occurs also in discussion section again.

5) Page 7,9: please write “same investigators” or similar instead of Authors initials.

6) Page 8, The AQV is not clearly described, it is hard to follow, what will be best outcome and what will be the worst (failed to handstand), please indicate what was the maximum of point that participant could achieved due to the errors.

7) Page 9 “arm length times three” it should be rewritten (for example multiplied) as it is misleading.

8) Page 9: I believe that “single arm push-up with legs a pelvic width apart” it is not correct description for this position, as the push-up implies flexing and extending the elbow joints in supporting arm. I recommend something like, single hand front support or similar.

9) Why the quality of handstands was evaluated with two methods? What was the purpose? Each additional testing with similar variable increase potential bias.

10) Lower part of Table 1. Is vague and hard to follow, please change to make it clear.

11) There is no figure 2 introduced in the manuscript.

12) While I understand the purpose of describing entire evaluation process, the details like division into 6 groups, the station approach etc. are non-important for the aim of the study. Please simplify this as it diminishes the clearance of the manuscript.

13) Page 15 lines 1-2, There are missing symbols in the equations.

14) While the Authors recognized the different shoulder position in their testing and handstand (90° vs 180°), more should be elaborated on the anatomy and function of shoulder joint as it comprises of glenohumeral joint and acromioclavicular joint.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-29129R1Are the shoulder joint function, stability, and mobility tests predictive of handstand execution?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Malíř,

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.

Both reviewers saw an improvement in the manuscript but raised a number of points that have not be addressed. Please ensure that you have addressed all points raised by the reviewers. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aliah Faisal Shaheen

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Not all of the reviewer's comments have been taken into account, so I am asking for corrections on the following issues:

1. The study still lacks of research questions. Please present research questions in bullet points.

2. Please describe in more detail the data in Table 1.

3. Reference numbers: 22, 24 contain errors. Please proofread and cite these items according to PloS One requirements as follows:

Omorczyk J, Bujas P, Puszczałowska-Lizis E, Biskup L. Balance in handstand and postural stability in standing position in athletes practicing gymnastics. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018; 20 (2): 139-147. doi: 10.5277/ABB-01110-2018-02.

Puszczałowska-Lizis E, Omorczyk J. The level of body balance in standing position and handstand in seniors athletes practicing artistic gymnastics. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2019; 21 (2): 37-44. doi: 10.5277/ABB-01352-2019-02.

When the authors address these issues I will be able to comment definitively and make the final decision.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has improved since last version, however there are still issues that should be addressed.

Authors must introduce all the abbreviation in full as soon as they appear in main text. Authors have changed some text and now there are abbreviation before the explanations.

1.) Previous 9) “Why was the quality of handstands evaluated with two methods? What was the purpose?

Each additional testing with similar variable increases potential bias.

Thank you for your comment. We chose these two rating scales as they provide different insights into the execution quality. Although the AQV is the official FIG rating scale, it is limited in terms of resolution. While not an official rating scale, the E-score allows for a much finer evaluation. Though these two scales were statistically significantly correlated (as can be expected) in our study, the strength of association was below a level (see page 13, lines 4-5) at which we would consider them interchangeable. Therefore, both provide separate insights into execution quality. We have amended the related sections of the text to reflect better our rationale for using both scales; see page 7, lines 12-24, and page 8, lines 1-10.”

@While Authors improve the rational for the usage of two scores, still it exceeds the purpose of this manuscript. I see and recommend two options: 1) stay with only one score method as It was suggested previously, or 2) incorporate the issue of scoring methods in handstand to the manuscript and thus change the manuscript topic and introduction, aim, discussion etc. accordingly.

2) Page 8. Lines 12-14. This sentence should be earlier not in the description of the stations.

3) Figure 3 and 4. There are no mention about them in the main text, they should also have the abbreviations explained in the figure caption.

4) previous 10) “Lower part of Table 1. Is vague and hard to follow, please change to make it clear.

Thank you for your feedback. We have redesigned Table 1 to make it more straightforward and accessible (see page 12, line 3).”

@Still the table is not so clear to the AQV description and again the abbreviations should be explained in tables.

5) previous 12) “While I understand the purpose of describing entire evaluation process, the details like division into 6 groups, the station approach etc. are non-important for the aim of the study. Please simplify this as it diminishes the clearance of the manuscript.

We agree, and we have thus removed this redundant information from the manuscript. See the rewritten text on page 5, lines 18-21.

@Still there are too much information on the procedure, that is not related directly to the outcome. Now, the Authors write about six groups of 20 so there was 120 participants? Materials describe 111. The indicating of stations it is unnecessary and blurs the image of research.

6) previous 13) Page 15 lines 1-2, There are missing symbols in the equations.

Thank you for noticing. We have added degrees of freedom to the calculation reporting (see page 14, lines 5-6).

@I believe that there should be “ꭓ2” but in PDF version I still see only blank squares.

7) previous 14) While the Authors recognized the different shoulder position in their testing and handstand (90° vs 180°), more should be elaborated on the anatomy and function of shoulder joint as it comprises of glenohumeral joint and acromioclavicular joint.

Thank you for your comment. We have added a new section discussing the key differences in loading of the rotator cuff muscles in different ranges of shoulder flexion; see page 15, lines 19-25, and page 16, lines 1-2).

@While the description improved, in my opinion this part focuses only on the glenohumeral joint and no elaboration on acromioclavicular/sternoclavicular joint is made.

8) Table 2 and 3 should have their captions above the table not underneath.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Are the shoulder joint function, stability, and mobility tests predictive of handstand execution?

PONE-D-23-29129R2

Dear Dr. Malíř,

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,

Aliah Faisal Shaheen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********