EU space security–An 8-Step online discourse analysis to decode hybrid threats

João Reis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303524

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 24, 2023
25 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Michal Ptaszynski, Editor PONE-D-23-34933EU Space Security – An 8-Step Online Discourse Analysis to Decode Hybrid ThreatsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reis, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 10 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, Michal Ptaszynski, PhD 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No 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: The research topic "EU Space Security – An 8-Step Online Discourse Analysis to Decode Hybrid Threats" is very interesting. Below is a description of the situation of the article with its respective recommendations: 1.They present original results with the definition of 8 steps that follow a clear methodology. 2.The experiments carried out using python software are appropriate 3.The conclusions they make regarding "Theoretical and political contributions" are appropriate based on the contribution 4.The writing of the article in English is adequate but should improve by applying the IMRYD methodology 5.It must define the applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and the integrity of the research, for the article to be accepted 6.Make a description or justification because the data is not available to everyone. With the above background, it is recommended to accept, complying with the defined suggestions. Reviewer #2: This paper presents an interesting and comprehensive account of the use of Online Discourse Analysis (ODA) as a means of identifying and countering hybrid threats, ostensibly using EU space security as a case study in which to understand these processes/a field in which this technique can be applied. It is a paper that I believe has a lot of potential, but needs some significant revisions in order to ensure this is the case. The paper presents two research questions: the first on how ODA can be used to identify, analyse and mitigate hybrid threats, which I feel the paper effectively addresses through its comprehensive discussion and explanations, and I do not have any particular concerns with; the second is what limitations current approaches to hybrid threats have that ODA can address, the answer to which which I feel is much less robust and developed in the paper as currently written. The current approaches do not appear to be explicitly spelled out, but are instead hinted towards or mentioned obliquely, making it difficult to identify what current approaches are used, where there limitations are, and how these new techniques may be more beneficial. For example, when thinking about hybrid threats, it would appear that elements of the ODA approach exist in the current approaches, be they using researchers and experts to identify (for example) disinformation narratives, points of distribution/dissemination, and then challenge them through various mechanisms such as fact-checking, rebuttal, or in some cases, suppression/deprioritisation of content. Step 7 of the ODA approach discusses real time monitoring and alerting, but if one of the key aspects of these processes is threat mitigation, Step 7 may want to focus more on how exactly ODA can be used to mitigate, rather than just identify and analyse hybrid threats. Another issue I have with the paper is the use of hybrid threats in the context of EU space policy as a framing for the paper. I feel the paper needs to provide much more explanatory detail on what a hybrid threat is, how these are defined and currently approached by the EU (if the EU is the focus), and why space is a field in which assessment of hybrid threats is of relevance. Much of the contemporary focus on hybrid threats concerns the use of techniques such as disinformation combined with attacks on information infrastructures intended to destabilise or delegitimise, while falling short of methods considered conventional in warfare. For this reason, a lot of the EU's policies and actions in this field have been focusing on issues such as 'democracy' (with the EU Democracy Action Plan), electoral integrity, improving regulation of political advertising, and co-regulatory mechanisms including under the Digital Services Act to bring social media platforms into a more effective regulatory space. In the context of space, what are the hybrid threats that are presented? I can see the obvious cyber-security related dimension, but where would the disinformation/discursive element be, that generates the 'hybrid' threat? I feel that the paper's theoretical contribution could be much stronger if it engaged more effectively with the literature on hybrid threats, situating the ODA model into this analysis, and then exploring how it could be effectively used. Section 4, which provides the discussion, does a little of this implicitly, but it needs to be greatly strengthened. It appears to acknowledge that such a system has a strong need for the involvement of experts in these hybrid threats in order for this approach to be effective - where in the ODA model are they brought in? Do they help inform the text reprocessing and keyword extraction? Or are they intended more for the 'mitigate' phase, rather than the identify and analyse phases? I feel the paper needs to be much clearer on this. In summary, I think this really is a paper with a lot of potential, and a model that has the potential to be supportive in combating the discursive element of hybrid threats - however, it needs more work to make this contribution clearer. ****** 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: Yes: Segundo Moisés Toapanta Toapanta 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.0303524.r001
Revision 1
28 Feb 2024 Author Response # GENERAL COMMENTS TO REVIEWERS First, we would like to thank the time you devoted to providing insightful recommendations. We believe that your comments have improved the paper in many ways. We hope you agree that the revised version builds a stronger contribution. We have taken the revision very seriously. If you feel that the revision has fallen short, we can reformulate accordingly. The following paragraphs deal with the detailed comments you raised. REVIEWER #1 Reviewer point #1: The research topic "EU Space Security – An 8-Step Online Discourse Analysis to Decode Hybrid Threats" is very interesting. Below is a description of the situation of the article with its respective recommendations: (1) They present original results with the definition of 8 steps that follow a clear methodology; (2) The experiments carried out using Python software are appropriate; (3)The conclusions they make regarding "Theoretical and political contributions" are appropriate based on the contribution; (4)The writing of the article in English is adequate but should improve by applying the IMRYD methodology; (5) It must define the applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and the integrity of the research, for the article to be accepted; (6) Make a description or justification because the data is not available to everyone. With the above background, it is recommended to accept, complying with the defined suggestions. Author response #1: First, we would like to express our gratitude for your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to the refinement of our work. In response to your suggestions, several key adjustments have been implemented. We have enhanced the clarity of the article organization, aligning it more closely with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure. Furthermore, we have integrated arguments on ethical considerations, emphasizing their significance not only in the current study but also in future research endeavors. Additionally, recognizing the importance of transparency, we have provided a rationale for the absence of extensive data, given the nature of our investigation which primarily focuses on the design of a threat detection model. Should you require further clarification on any of the above aspects or wish to explore other issues of our work, please feel free to do so. Once again, thank you for your support. REVIEWER #2 Reviewer point #1: This paper presents an interesting and comprehensive account of the use of Online Discourse Analysis (ODA) as a means of identifying and countering hybrid threats, ostensibly using EU space security as a case study in which to understand these processes/a field in which this technique can be applied. It is a paper that I believe has a lot of potential, but needs some significant revisions in order to ensure this is the case. Author response #1: Thank you for your comment. Reviewer point #2: The paper presents two research questions – the first on how ODA can be used to identify, analyse and mitigate hybrid threats, which I feel the paper effectively addresses through its comprehensive discussion and explanations, and I do not have any particular concerns with; the second is what limitations current approaches to hybrid threats have that ODA can address, the answer to which I feel is much less robust and developed in the paper as currently written. The current approaches do not appear to be explicitly spelled out, but are instead hinted towards or mentioned obliquely, making it difficult to identify what current approaches are used, where there limitations are, and how these new techniques may be more beneficial. For example, when thinking about hybrid threats, it would appear that elements of the ODA approach exist in the current approaches, be they using researchers and experts to identify (for example) disinformation narratives, points of distribution/dissemination, and then challenge them through various mechanisms such as fact-checking, rebuttal, or in some cases, suppression/deprioritisation of content. Step 7 of the ODA approach discusses real time monitoring and alerting, but if one of the key aspects of these processes is threat mitigation, Step 7 may want to focus more on how exactly ODA can be used to mitigate, rather than just identify and analyse hybrid threats. Author response #2: Your point is very well taken. Indeed, within the domain of hybrid threats, there exist elements of ODA aimed at pinpointing disinformation narratives and their dissemination channels. These narratives are then countered through various means, including fact-checking, refutation, and, in certain instances, content suppression or deprioritization. Step 7 of the ODA approach revolves around real-time monitoring and alerts, closely linked to Step 8. The European Union's policy has predominantly prioritized threat identification over effective countermeasures, a reality that persists within the current model and remains a challenge to overcome. Nevertheless, the EU possesses a few tools actively engaged in combating hybrid threats, serving as key points within this framework. To clarify this aspect further, we have provided a more detailed explanation of how ODA facilitates collaboration with experts tasked with formulating strategies to counter hybrid threats (please see section 4.4.). Thank you very much for your comments. Reviewer point #3: Another issue I have with the paper is the use of hybrid threats in the context of EU space policy as a framing for the paper. I feel the paper needs to provide much more explanatory detail on what a hybrid threat is, how these are defined and currently approached by the EU (if the EU is the focus), and why space is a field in which assessment of hybrid threats is of relevance. Much of the contemporary focus on hybrid threats concerns the use of techniques such as disinformation combined with attacks on information infrastructures intended to destabilise or delegitimise, while falling short of methods considered conventional in warfare. For this reason, a lot of the EU's policies and actions in this field have been focusing on issues such as 'democracy' (with the EU Democracy Action Plan), electoral integrity, improving regulation of political advertising, and co-regulatory mechanisms including under the Digital Services Act to bring social media platforms into a more effective regulatory space. In the context of space, what are the hybrid threats that are presented? I can see the obvious cyber-security related dimension, but where would the disinformation/discursive element be, that generates the 'hybrid' threat? I feel that the paper's theoretical contribution could be much stronger if it engaged more effectively with the literature on hybrid threats, situating the ODA model into this analysis, and then exploring how it could be effectively used. Section 4, which provides the discussion, does a little of this implicitly, but it needs to be greatly strengthened. It appears to acknowledge that such a system has a strong need for the involvement of experts in these hybrid threats in order for this approach to be effective - where in the ODA model are they brought in? Do they help inform the text reprocessing and keyword extraction? Or are they intended more for the 'mitigate' phase, rather than the identify and analyse phases? I feel the paper needs to be much clearer on this. Author response #3: After reading your comment, we too recognize the significance of bridging literature to our discourse. Though our focus was primarily on technical features, your insight highlights the value of exploring literature in our discourse. In our review, we have provided a comprehensive elucidation of hybrid threats in space, integrating the ODA model into our analysis and delineating its practical application (please see section 4.5.). We hope this version is a considerable improvement over the previous one. Should you require further clarification on any of the above aspects or wish to explore other issues of our work, please feel free to do so. Reviewer point #4: In summary, I think this really is a paper with a lot of potential, and a model that has the potential to be supportive in combating the discursive element of hybrid threats - however, it needs more work to make this contribution clearer. Author response #4: We deeply appreciate your constructive feedback, which we believe has significantly enhanced the article. Moreover, we are thankful for the opportunity you have provided us to strengthen the text, making it more impactful and empowering for our community as we progress in this crucial matter. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303524.r002
7 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Michal Ptaszynski, Editor PONE-D-23-34933R1EU Space Security – An 8-Step Online Discourse Analysis to Decode Hybrid ThreatsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reis, 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 21 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, Michal Ptaszynski, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: 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: N/A ****** 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: 1.- It is recommended in the summary to clearly identify the following structure: Identification of the problem, research objective, method used, result and main conclusion 2.-The body of the article should be improved by applying the structure of the IMRYD research methodology 3.-The 8 steps to decoding hybrid threats are important to improve the EU space. Reviewer #2: I am very happy with the revisions made, which I think have really strengthened the paper and addressed the concerns I had. I thank the author for their genuine and reflective 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: Yes: Moisés Toapanta, PhD. 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.0303524.r003
Revision 2
12 Mar 2024 Author Response # GENERAL COMMENTS TO REVIEWERS We would like to thank the time you devoted to providing insightful recommendations. Once again, your comments have improved our paper and we hope you agree that this revised version builds a stronger contribution. As always, we have taken the revision very seriously. If you feel the revision has fallen short, we can reformulate accordingly. The following paragraphs deal with the detailed comments you raised. REVIEWER #1 Reviewer point #1: It is recommended in the summary to clearly identify the following structure: Identification of the problem, research objective, method used, result and main conclusion. Author response #1: Thank you very much for your feedback. We have revised the summary/abstract as per your suggestion, encompassing the identification of the problem, research objectives, methodology, results, and main conclusions. To adhere to the Journal's guidelines, we maintain a maximum limit of 300 words for the abstract and use track changes so that you can easily identify changes throughout the article. Reviewer point #2: The body of the article should be improved by applying the structure of the IMRYD research methodology. Author response #2: At the end of the introduction section, we reference our adherence to the IMRyD or IMRaD structure, which is also reflected throughout the article. Hence, the article adheres to the IMRyD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). We have also included two supplementary sections: one providing a theoretical framework and the other offering a conclusive summary focusing on the originality and contributions of our research. These two supplementary sections adhere to well-established academic structures, bolstering the overall strength of the IMRyD framework. We believe that your recommendation enhanced the comprehensiveness and depth of our article, contributing significantly to its scholarly value. Thank you for your valuable input. Reviewer point #3: The 8 steps to decoding hybrid threats are important to improve the EU space. Author response #3: We think this comment is not a revision request. Overall, we deeply appreciate your comments. If you think any of the aforementioned points require further elaboration, we are more than willing to accommodate your suggestions. REVIEWER #2 Reviewer point #1: I am very happy with the revisions made, which I think have really strengthened the paper and addressed the concerns I had. I thank the author for their genuine and reflective response! Author response #1: Dear Reviewer, we want to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions in enhancing our article. Your suggestions and support have been greatly appreciated. The author, March, 2024 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303524.r004
26 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Michal Ptaszynski, Editor EU Space Security – An 8-Step Online Discourse Analysis to Decode Hybrid Threats PONE-D-23-34933R2 Dear Dr. Reis, 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, Michal Ptaszynski, PhD 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: N/A ****** 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: Congratulations to the authors, they have made the requested modifications, and I recommend the acceptance and publication of the article. Reviewer #2: (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: Yes: Moisés Toapanta, PhD., is a Doctor in Information Technology from the University of Guadalajara- Mexico, Master in Communications Management and Information Technology, MSc. Cum Laude from the National Polytechnic School (EPN), Computer Engineer and Information Sciences, Public Administration Technician, Parachutist and Former Marine. He carried out his doctoral research stays at the Department of Information and Communications Technologies of the Polytechnic University of Cartagena (UPCT) Spain and the Faculty of Systems Engineering of the National Polytechnic School. Principal Professor at the Universitario Rumiñahui - Sangolqui, Guest Research Professor at the Catholic University of Santiago de Guayaquil (UCSG), Director of TFM (Master of Computer Security and Cybersecurity) at UNIR-Spain, Guest Professor in Postgraduate Studies, Director and Co-Director of Master's and Doctorate (PhD) theses at several Universities in Ecuador, Peru, Mexico and Spain. He is a Consultant, Advisor and Mentor in ICT, Information Security Governance, Strategic Alignment, Cybersecurity, Cyberbullying, Projects, IT Infrastructure Administration, Networks and Communications, Strategic Planning, Scientific Research, Training for teaching researchers and professionals. through Global Technology Management "GTM" International. He is an accredited evaluator and researcher, categorized in the RNI- Senescyt, IEEE Author: ID 37086208212. Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303524.r005
Formally Accepted
27 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Michal Ptaszynski, Editor PONE-D-23-34933R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reis, 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. Michal Ptaszynski Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303524.r006

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 .