A case-control study evaluating CT signs of xiphoid process associated with xiphodynia

Ryosuke Ono; Ken Horibata

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303657

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 6, 2024
6 May 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303657.r001
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Roham Borazjani, Editor PONE-D-24-16507A case-control study evaluating CT signs of xiphoid process associated with xiphodyniaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ono, 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. Since the Reviewers carefully reviewed the article, your manuscript needs further revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 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, Roham Borazjani 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. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards. At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study of the xiphoid process, has been evaluated by CT scan, in the diagnosing xiphodynia. concluded that The xiphoid process sternal angle is not useful for diagnosing xiphodynia. The paper is well written and ethical issues are considered appropriately. Reviewer #2: First, I would like to congratulate the authors on an interesting study and the efforts put forth to answer a rare clinical conundrum. Overall, the manuscript is well written, easy to read, and understand. There are a few minor syntax errors that could be corrected. In addition, would consider using the term study group rather than case group in the abstract as it reads better. In some instance, you may want to consider using the term xiphosternal angulation as oppose to angle as this represents a phenomenon rather than an anatomic finding. In lines 169, 171, and 173, recommend specification of the origin of the line, for example, "from the anterior abdominal wall to..." as any line has to have two points of reference. In the table on page 10, please reduce the size of the table 2 to conform to the page as it runs over the margin. In line 359 and 360 on page 13, the phrase is not clear, "although not explicitly stated the angles?" Please revise, perhaps, "although not explicitly stated regarding the angles..." Again, enjoyed reading and reviewing your submission. ****** 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: Gholam Reza Raissi MD Reviewer #2: Yes: Omar K Danner, MD, MBA, FACS, FCCM ******** [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.0303657.r002
Revision 1
9 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the thorough review and constructive feedback you provided on my manuscript submitted to PLOS ONE. Your insightful comments have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I have carefully considered each of your suggestions and incorporated them into the revised version. Your expertise and thoughtful input have significantly contributed to the overall enhancement of the paper. Thank you once again for your time, effort, and valuable contributions to the advancement of this work. Your dedication to the peer review process is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Corresponding Author: Ryosuke Ono Department of Community Medicine, Kameyama rikusan2005@yahoo.co.jp 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 →We have confirmed that the submitted file meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards. At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. →We have uploaded the data to Dryad. Below are the Reviewer link and DOI for your reference. ReviewerURL: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/12RMAxde1Qt6QDs9SCraPdbrGHPpKrE1-DYXcfPtJxU doi:10.5061/dryad.ghx3ffbxw 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. →We have confirmed that all references are publicly accessible. References 2 and 15 are not indexed in PubMed. Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study of the xiphoid process, has been evaluated by CT scan, in the diagnosing xiphodynia. concluded that The xiphoid process sternal angle is not useful for diagnosing xiphodynia. The paper is well written and ethical issues are considered appropriately. →Thank you for your evaluation. It has become an encouragement for my future research career. Reviewer #2: First, I would like to congratulate the authors on an interesting study and the efforts put forth to answer a rare clinical conundrum. Overall, the manuscript is well written, easy to read, and understand. There are a few minor syntax errors that could be corrected. In addition, would consider using the term study group rather than case group in the abstract as it reads better. →Thank you very much for your feedback. We have made some corrections based on it. In some instance, you may want to consider using the term xiphosternal angulation as oppose to angle as this represents a phenomenon rather than an anatomic finding. →In the discussion, we changed "angle" to "angulation" in two instances where it conveyed the meaning of "a phenomenon rather than an anatomic finding." Upon further investigation into the meanings of "angulation" and "angle," as you pointed out, it seems that "xiphisternal angulation" would convey a more appropriate nuance than "xiphisternal angle." However, since "xiphisternal angle" has been consistently used in previous literatures, we have opted to adopt this term in our study as well. In lines 169, 171, and 173, recommend specification of the origin of the line, for example, "from the anterior abdominal wall to..." as any line has to have two points of reference. →I am debating whether to make the changes as you suggested. For the B-line, I considered modifying it from "A tangent line to the midline of the base of the xiphoid process" to "A line perpendicular to the midpoint between the ventral and dorsal sides at the base of the xiphoid process." However, I believe this expression would not be suitable for the D-line because the thickness at the tip of the xiphoid process is approximately zero. Moreover, considering that tangency is defined as "a straight line passing through two points infinitely close on a curve," it seems unnecessary to strictly define two points. Ultimately, the key is how to define these lines to enhance the reproducibility of the study. Since we initially adopted tangents as curves rather than midlines of thickness, we prefer to use the original description. If changes are still preferable based on the considerations above, I am willing to make adjustments. Your feedback on this matter would be appreciated. In the table on page 10, please reduce the size of the table 2 to conform to the page as it runs over the margin. →We have made adjustments to fit within the framework. In line 359 and 360 on page 13, the phrase is not clear, "although not explicitly stated the angles?" Please revise, perhaps, "although not explicitly stated regarding the angles..." →As you suggested, we have made the changes. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303657.r003
12 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Roham Borazjani, Editor PONE-D-24-16507R1A case-control study evaluating CT signs of xiphoid process associated with xiphodyniaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ono, 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 Sep 26 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, Roham Borazjani 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. Additional Editor Comments: Thanks for addressing all the reviewer comments. Please make sure that your manuscript structure follows the PLOS ONE formatting sample. Please submit an unstructured abstract. revise your references, figures, and tables to follow the PLOS ONE formatting sample (find the attached PDF) [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: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper is a good work regarding xphodnia , I had no specific comment in review and can be accepted for publication. Reviewer #2: Thank you making the updates and revisions and your efforts. This is a very well written manuscript. It sets the foundation for a multi-institutional study to further delineate the subject matter. Recommend changing the last reference to the appropriate case as the authors names do not need to be in all capitalized letter. Otherwise, no additional changes were identified or are recommended. ****** 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: Golam Reza Raissi 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303657.r004
Revision 2
25 Aug 2024 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, I am writing to submit the revised version of my manuscript titled “[Title of Your Manuscript]” for reconsideration by PLOS ONE. I sincerely appreciate the additional feedback and comments provided by the reviewers and editorial team following my previous submission. Their continued guidance has been instrumental in refining the manuscript further. In this revision, I have made every effort to ensure that the manuscript adheres to the submission guidelines of PLOS ONE. Notably, the tables have been converted to figures in accordance with the journal’s requirements. I hope that my submission is now fully compliant with the guidelines. Thank you once again for your time, effort, and valuable input in reviewing this work. I look forward to your feedback on the revised manuscript. Best regards, Corresponding Author: Ryosuke Ono Department of Community Medicine, Kameyama rikusan2005@yahoo.co.jp 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. →We have corrected the author names in reference 23, which were previously in uppercase. Additional Editor Comments: Thanks for addressing all the reviewer comments. Please make sure that your manuscript structure follows the PLOS ONE formatting sample. Please submit an unstructured abstract. revise your references, figures, and tables to follow the PLOS ONE formatting sample (find the attached PDF) →We have revised the abstract to make it less structured. Additionally, we have converted all tables to figures. The font in the figures has been changed to the specified one, and PACE has also been used. Reviewer #2: Recommend changing the last reference to the appropriate case as the authors names do not need to be in all capitalized letter. →We hadn't noticed this until it was pointed out, so we appreciate your help. We have made the necessary corrections. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303657.r005
25 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Richa Gupta, Editor A case-control study evaluating CT signs of xiphoid process associated with xiphodynia PONE-D-24-16507R2 Dear Dr. Ono, 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, Richa Gupta Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): In this study, the authors have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive examination of the diagnostic criteria for xiphodynia. They have invested significant effort into addressing all the necessary revisions and improvements suggested by the reviewers and the editorial committee. Each amendment has been carefully and precisely implemented, ensuring that the article meets the standards of academic rigor and clarity. Given the depth of their work and the meticulous revisions made in response to the feedback, I wholeheartedly recommend the ACCEPTANCE of this article for publication." Please find attached reviewer’s comments: REVIEWER 1 – ACCEPT This is an interesting study of the xiphoid process, has been evaluated by CT scan, in the diagnosing xiphodynia. concluded that The xiphoid process sternal angle is not useful for diagnosing xiphodynia. The paper is well written and ethical issues are considered appropriately. 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: The manuscriptis is compliant with the guidelines and is now acceptable for publication. the language is clear and coorect. ****** 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: GholamrReza Raissi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303657.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Richa Gupta, Editor PONE-D-24-16507R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ono, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Richa Gupta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303657.r007

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 .