Dynamics of growth, physiology, radiation interception, production, and quality of autumn black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) as influenced by nutrient scheduling

Purabi Banerjee; Visha Kumari Venugopalan; Rajib Nath; Ahmed Gaber; Akbar Hossain

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304466

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 1, 2024
24 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Banwari Lal, Editor PONE-D-24-04425Dynamics of growth, physiology, radiation interception, production and quality of autumn black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) as influenced by nutrient schedulingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hossain, 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 Jun 08 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, Banwari Lal, Ph.D. 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 stating the following financial disclosure: The researchers would also like to acknowledge the Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur, Bangladesh and Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: The researchers would also like to acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: The researchers would also like to acknowledge the Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur, Bangladesh and Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Section/Line No Comments Introduction: Can you provide more context on why cobalt, potassium, and boron were selected as the focus nutrients for this study? Were there specific deficiencies or growth limitations observed in previous research that prompted their investigation? The role/importance of studied parameter “nitrate reductase” is missing from introduction. Mention it Material and methodology Why photosynthetic and nitrate reductase was studied at 50% flowering stage only? ADM and LAI are not at all affected at this stage by any treatment but still you are reporting significant values in table 3? explain Figure 2: In Figure 2 and all subsequent figures, is there any specific reason for maintaining large gap between “cobalt” and “no spray” treatments. Keep uniform gap among the treatments in all figures. Figure 2A and B: Why ADM in 2020 is significantly higher in “tap water” compared to “No spray” in all stages except flowering where it is comparable? Moreover, in next year (2021) it remains comparable in almost all stages. explain and justify Yearwise, bar colours are different for the same stage (For example, Maturity stage in 2020 denoted by red colour but in 2021 it is red. Use uniform pattern in all figures. Mention other results of other treatments (K, B) as well in text. Figure 3B: Why LAI in 2021 is significantly higher in “tap water” compared to “No spray” in pod filling and maturity? L61-62: Statement is “The interception of solar radiation holds an immense significance on developmental aspects of crop plants including food legumes [1,2]” However quoted ref [1,2] are about “WHEAT” a cereal and NOT legume as misquoted by author L140: In experimental design and treatment details, why the abbreviations for each treatment are mentioned when they are not used in text and figure for even single time? Remove it L172: Mention the formula equation for calculating aerial dry matter. L187-88: Write procedure in details and name of the substate used for nitrate reductase activity Table 2: Make table year wise, as figures are made. In present format it is difficult to compare between stages. Why data is not analysed stage-wise as in figures. L244-48: Rewrite after analysing stagewise data. Figure 4: Explain why there in no significant effect of treatments Flowering stage of both year but immediately in next stage i.e. pod filling there is exactly same pattern in 2020 and 2021 Figure 5: In caption it is mentioned that “Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Different alphabets delineate significant differences between means” but in figure there is no error bars and alphabets are present. Correct it Figure 6: Describe results in text with more details L221-25: This is irrespective to the treatments. No need to mention it. L225-27: Explain year wise data for better understanding. L228-29: Statement “ …K+B recorded maximum ADM and LAI…”. Its false statement, review it (as ADM and LAI are statistically same in cobalt and K+B treatments. L229: Statement “……which were statistically significant as well”. Mention needed for compared to which treatment (s)? L271: Remove extra full stop. L288-89: State whether it is significant or non-significant and justify accordingly L403: Statement “Randawa [48] has also reported similar results as we have reported” rewrite L403: In text ref “Randawa” has given [48] number in literature cited at 48 number same reference is not mentioned. Reference Please see for uniform formatting as per journal style [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 “Dynamics of growth, physiology, radiation interception, production and quality of autumn black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) as influenced by nutrient scheduling” is a good study and good information is being generated and well presented. There is need to address following comments before publication. Section/Line No Comments Introduction: Can you provide more context on why cobalt, potassium, and boron were selected as the focus nutrients for this study? Were there specific deficiencies or growth limitations observed in previous research that prompted their investigation? The role/importance of studied parameter “nitrate reductase” is missing from introduction. Mention it Material and methodology Why photosynthetic and nitrate reductase was studied at 50% flowering stage only? ADM and LAI are not at all affected at this stage by any treatment but still you are reporting significant values in table 3? explain Figure 2: In Figure 2 and all subsequent figures, is there any specific reason for maintaining large gap between “cobalt” and “no spray” treatments. Keep uniform gap among the treatments in all figures. Figure 2A and B: Why ADM in 2020 is significantly higher in “tap water” compared to “No spray” in all stages except flowering where it is comparable? Moreover, in next year (2021) it remains comparable in almost all stages. explain and justify Yearwise, bar colours are different for the same stage (For example, Maturity stage in 2020 denoted by red colour but in 2021 it is red. Use uniform pattern in all figures. Mention other results of other treatments (K, B) as well in text. Figure 3B: Why LAI in 2021 is significantly higher in “tap water” compared to “No spray” in pod filling and maturity? L61-62: Statement is “The interception of solar radiation holds an immense significance on developmental aspects of crop plants including food legumes [1,2]” However quoted ref [1,2] are about “WHEAT” a cereal and NOT legume as misquoted by author L140: In experimental design and treatment details, why the abbreviations for each treatment are mentioned when they are not used in text and figure for even single time? Remove it L172: Mention the formula equation for calculating aerial dry matter. L187-88: Write procedure in details and name of the substate used for nitrate reductase activity Table 2: Make table year wise, as figures are made. In present format it is difficult to compare between stages. Why data is not analysed stage-wise as in figures. L244-48: Rewrite after analysing stagewise data. Figure 4: Explain why there in no significant effect of treatments Flowering stage of both year but immediately in next stage i.e. pod filling there is exactly same pattern in 2020 and 2021 Figure 5: In caption it is mentioned that “Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Different alphabets delineate significant differences between means” but in figure there is no error bars and alphabets are present. Correct it Figure 6: Describe results in text with more details L221-25: This is irrespective to the treatments. No need to mention it. L225-27: Explain year wise data for better understanding. L228-29: Statement “ …K+B recorded maximum ADM and LAI…”. Its false statement, review it (as ADM and LAI are statistically same in cobalt and K+B treatments. L229: Statement “……which were statistically significant as well”. Mention needed for compared to which treatment (s)? L271: Remove extra full stop. L288-89: State whether it is significant or non-significant and justify accordingly L403: Statement “Randawa [48] has also reported similar results as we have reported” rewrite L403: In text ref “Randawa” has given [48] number in literature cited at 48 number same reference is not mentioned. Reference Please see for uniform formatting as per journal style ****** 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: Dr Shankar Lal Jat ******** [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.0304466.r001
Revision 1
8 May 2024 Author Response Date: 08 May 2024 To Banwari Lal, Ph.D. Academic Editor: PLOS ONE Ref: PONE-D-24-04425 Title: Dynamics of growth, physiology, radiation interception, production and quality of autumn black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper)) as influenced by nutrient scheduling Sub: Submission of the revised version of the article ‘PONE-D-24-04425’ after resolving all issues raised by the editor and reviewers’ Dear Editor, Thank you for sending the reviewers’ and editorial comments, which have allowed us to further improve the article. We are happy to inform you that we have been able to resolve all aspects raised by the editor and reviewers. All edits are shown in yellow, as well as the track change mode in the text of the article. Unfortunately, we have overlooked any aspects that kindly let us know, and we will rectify that immediately. Please see our response to all the comments below: Response to Editorial and reviewers’ comments Journal Requirements Comment 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 Authors’ Response: The current version of the article is rearranged as per style of the journal Comment 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The researchers would also like to acknowledge the Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur, Bangladesh and Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work. 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. Authors’ Response: The financial disclosure section should be revised as: The study was financially supported by Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur- 741252, Nadia, West Bengal, India; Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur 5200, Bangladesh and ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad 500059, Telangana, India. The research was also funded by Taif University, Saudi Arabia, Project No. (TU-DSPP-2024-07). We are also requesting you to incorporate a statement in the section. For example, ‘The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript’. Comment 3: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgements Section of your manuscript: The researchers would also like to acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgements section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: The researchers would also like to acknowledge the Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur, Bangladesh and Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Authors’ Response: The acknowledgement section should be modified as: The authors would like to sincerely thank to Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur- 741252, Nadia, West Bengal, India; Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute, Dinajpur 5200, Bangladesh and ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad 500059, Telangana, India to provide all facilities for successfully completed the study. Authors would also appreciate the support and facility of Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia under project number (TU-DSPP-2024-07). Comments of editorial/Reviewer 1 Comment: The “Dynamics of growth, physiology, radiation interception, production and quality of autumn black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) as influenced by nutrient scheduling” is a good study and good information is being generated and well presented. There is need to address following comments before publication. Authors’ Response: Authors are pleased to note the constructive suggestions and positive remarks from Reviewer 1. All the criteria of the reviewer have been minutely taken into consideration and changes have been incorporated in the revised manuscript accordingly wherever applicable. Comment: Introduction: Can you provide more context on why cobalt, potassium, and boron were selected as the focus nutrients for this study? Were there specific deficiencies or growth limitations observed in previous research that prompted their investigation? Authors’ Response: The context has been elaborated in line no 101-109 in the revised manuscript. Comment: The role/importance of studied parameter “nitrate reductase” is missing from introduction. Mention it. Authors’ Response: The role/importance of studied parameter “nitrate reductase” has been included in line no 92-96 under introduction in the revised manuscript. Comment: Material and methodology: Why photosynthetic and nitrate reductase was studied at 50% flowering stage only? Authors’ Response: The explanations have been included in line no 201-207 and 222-227, respectively in the revised manuscript. Comment: ADM and LAI are not at all affected at this stage by any treatment but still you are reporting significant values in table 3? explain Authors’ Response: The fact has been discussed with proper explanation matter in line no 460-468 in the revised manuscript. Comment: Figure 2: In Figure 2 and all subsequent figures, is there any specific reason for maintaining large gap between “cobalt” and “no spray” treatments. Keep uniform gap among the treatments in all figures. Authors’ Response: A specific gap has been maintained between “cobalt” and “no spray” treatments in every case which is a little longer than the gaps between any two levels of the individual factors just to create a visual ease for differentiating the two separate factors of the experiment with corresponding levels, while keeping uniform gap between the different levels of any of the factors. Comment: Figure 2A and B: Why ADM in 2020 is significantly higher in “tap water” compared to “No spray” in all stages except flowering where it is comparable? Moreover, in next year (2021) it remains comparable in almost all stages. explain and justify. Authors’ Response: The explanation and justification have been added matter in line no 433-440 in the revised manuscript. Comment: Yearwise, bar colours are different for the same stage (For example, Maturity stage in 2020 denoted by red colour but in 2021 it is red. Use uniform pattern in all figures. Authors’ Response: Uniform bar colours have been maintained for same stage in both year in Figure 2 and 3. Comment: Mention other results of other treatments (K, B) as well in text. Authors’ Response: The outcomes for foliar K spray and B spray have been included in the results wherever applicable. Comment: Figure 3B: Why LAI in 2021 is significantly higher in “tap water” compared to “No spray” in pod filling and maturity? Authors’ Response: The explanation and justification have been added matter in line no 440-443 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L61-62: Statement is “The interception of solar radiation holds an immense significance on developmental aspects of crop plants including food legumes [1,2]” However, quoted ref [1,2] are about “WHEAT” a cereal and NOT legume as misquoted by author Authors’ Response: Citation has been modified which are exclusively into pulse crops. Comment: L140: In experimental design and treatment details, why the abbreviations for each treatment are mentioned when they are not used in text and figure for even single time? Remove it Authors’ Response: Treatment abbreviations have been removed. Comment: L172: Mention the formula equation for calculating aerial dry matter. Authors’ Response: Formula equation has been added for calculating aerial dry matter in line no 187 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L187-88: Write procedure in details and name of the substate used for nitrate reductase activity Authors’ Response: Detailed procedure of NR estimation with substrate used have been included in line no 210-221 in the revised manuscript. Comment: Table 2: Make table year wise, as figures are made. In present format it is difficult to compare between stages. Authors’ Response: All the three tables have been modified into year wise format. Comment: Why data is not analysed stagewise as in figures. L244-48: Rewrite after analysing stagewise data. Authors’ Response: The portion has been rewritten after analysing stagewise data in line no 301-307 in the revised manuscript. Comment: Figure 4: Explain why there in no significant effect of treatments Flowering stage of both year but immediately in next stage, i.e., pod filling there is exactly same pattern in 2020 and 2021 Authors’ Response: The explanation has been added matter in line no 499-503 in the revised manuscript. Comment: Figure 5: In caption it is mentioned that “Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Different alphabets delineate significant differences between means” but in figure there is no error bars and alphabets are present. Correct it Authors’ Response: The sentence has been deleted from the caption of Figure 5. Comment: Figure 6: Describe results in text with more details Authors’ Response: Detailed results of Figure 6 have been presented in line no 379-389 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L221-25: This is irrespective to the treatments. No need to mention it. Authors’ Response: The portion has been removed. Comment: L225-27: Explain year wise data for better understanding. Authors’ Response: The segment has been modified in line no 264-278 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L228-29: Statement “ …K+B recorded maximum ADM and LAI…”. Its false statement, review it (as ADM and LAI are statistically same in cobalt and K+B treatments. Authors’ Response: Basically, soil application and foliar spray are two separate factors in this experiment. The analysis has been presented separately for these two factors in each table, under which, the respective levels are under comparison. Therefore, there is no comparison as such between soil cobalt application and K+B foliar spray. For more clarification, the sentence mentioned has been rephrased in line no 273-278 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L229: Statement “……which were statistically significant as well”. Mention needed for compared to which treatment (s)? Authors’ Response: Treatment comparison has been mentioned in line no 273-278 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L271: Remove extra full stop. Authors’ Response: Extra full stop has been removed. Comment: L288-89: State whether it is significant or nonsignificant and justify accordingly. Authors’ Response: The significance has been justified in line no 495-499 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L403: Statement “Randawa [48] has also reported similar results as we have reported” rewrite Authors’ Response: The sentence has been rewritten in line no 510-511 in the revised manuscript. Comment: L403: In text ref “Randawa” has given [48] number in literature cited at 48 number same reference is not mentioned. Authors’ Response: Citation number has been modified. Comment: Reference, please see for uniform formatting as per journal style Authors’ Response: Entire reference section has been checked and formatted. In addition to these corrections, we have carefully rechecked the entire article and modified it per the journal’s requirements. Please check the main text of the revised manuscript for responsewise modifications. We look forward to your editorial decision. With regards Akbar Hossain (Corresponding author) http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0264-2712 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal_PONE-D-24-04425.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304466.r002
14 May 2024 Decision Letter - Banwari Lal, Editor Dynamics ofgrowth, physiology, radiation interception,production and quality of autumn black gram ( Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) as influenced by nutrient scheduling PONE-D-24-04425R1 Dear Dr. Hossain, 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, Banwari Lal, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304466.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Banwari Lal, Editor PONE-D-24-04425R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hossain, 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. Banwari Lal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304466.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .