Analyzing intelligent tourism development and public services based on a fuzzy genetic hybrid system to promote environmental and cultural values

Jinxia Lou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306718

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 1, 2024
27 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Agnieszka Konys, Editor PONE-D-24-08338Analyzing Intelligent Tourism Development and public services based on a Fuzzy Genetic Hybrid System to Promote Environmental and cultural valuesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lou, 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 carefully check the Reviewers’ comments and improve the manuscript. Comments from PLOS Editorial Office: We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 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, Agnieszka Konys, Ph.D. 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. 5. Please be informed that 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Dear author, I appreciate the novelty of the work. It has many merits and is able to provide an alternative approach, as you rightly mentioned. However, at the current phase, I have observed some lapses in your manuscript. Please find my observations below: 1. The Abstract is unclear, especially regarding the last part and how it concludes and is useful as an alternative approach. Adding a conclusion and recommendation line in the abstract would benefit readers' understanding. 2. The Background section looks incomplete; it misses the aim and scope of the study at the end. The required information seems to be written below Figure 2, but it should be included in the Background section. I suggest authors check published papers in PLOS One and try to replicate the style for uniformity. 3. The Literature Review is weakly developed. I suggest authors write the Literature Review section in paragraphs rather than in the current format. Here too, please refer to earlier published papers in PLOS One for guidance. 4. In Kong et al. [32], the authors wrote, "Then I will analyze them based on the traditional theory of the tourism industry." This sentence is not connected anywhere. Please ensure all paragraphs and sentences are well-written and connected. 5. The Methods section is not properly developed for this study. I have found it in various places but not in the specific point. I, therefore, suggest authors write it after the Literature Review section and then follow their logical argument. Please refer to published papers in PLOS One for guidance. It will help to develop their argument as well as maintain the standard of the journal. 6. I suggest combining Section 3, Section 4, and Section 5 under a single heading. It could be titled "Purpose Model/Method" as it includes mathematical and other technical aspects showing how it can go vis-a-vis. This type of heading leaves a greater impression on the readers. 7. Instead of 'Discussion', consider using different headings such as "Result Analysis" or "Cumulative Analysis." 8. Replace the heading "Summary" with "Conclusion" and ensure it is written properly. 9. Apart from Background and Literature Review, the paper is not cited properly. It needs to be developed as a research paper. Please adhere to the standards set by PLOS One for writing. 10. One important observation is that this manuscript has not been well-cited and does not use previous papers as references. References and citations are limited only to the literature review, and thereafter, all writing is done without any scientific support. It needs to cite and compare other studies and findings with the proposed model presented in this paper and other sections of the paper. Since this paper proposes new insights which could take a bigger shape in the future, it is worth publishing. However, the development of the current form is very weak and requires professional writing. Following PLOS One guidelines could be beneficial. Reviewer #2: The first heading of the paper should be INTRODUCTION rather than Background. The term in the first paragraph of the paper "social Culture legacy" should be "social culture legacy" or "Social Culture Legacy". The review of literature is in chronological order. It should be systematic and logical. This section requires overall revision. The section should conclude to the research gap addressed in this research. Furthermore, the literature should be enriched with the insights from the most recent studies on the role of tourism and its impact on socio-economic life and environment. For instance, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211000480 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-28377-0 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080172 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-48652-5_110 There is no comprehensive discussion on the results. The Summary section needs revision. First of all the authors should discuss the findings of the study. The most relevant policy implications followed by the limitations and future directions of research should be spelled out. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306718.r001
Revision 1
10 Apr 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: I appreciate the novelty of the work. It has many merits and is able to provide an alternative approach, as you rightly mentioned. However, at the current phase, I have observed some lapses in your manuscript. Please find my observations below: 1. The Abstract is unclear, especially regarding the last part and how it concludes and is useful as an alternative approach. Adding a conclusion and recommendation line in the abstract would benefit readers' understanding. Ans: The efficiency of the system evaluated using the recommendation ration in which system ensures 48.58%, 0.105% development rate, 4 factor detection rate, 55.5% review based assessment for 5k visitors. 2. The Background section looks incomplete; it misses the aim and scope of the study at the end. The required information seems to be written below Figure 2, but it should be included in the Background section. I suggest authors check published papers in PLOS One and try to replicate the style for uniformity. Ans: The objective of this system is to conduct an analysis and facilitate the advancement of intelligent tourist development, taking into account both environmental and cultural values. The assessment of public services and infrastructure connected to tourism is conducted using a fuzzy genetic hybrid technique. The technology enhances decision-making processes for sustainable tourism practices by integrating fuzzy logic and genetic algorithms. In essence, its objective is to achieve a harmonious equilibrium between economic expansion and the conservation of natural resources and cultural legacy. In figure 2 below describe that what is going to discussed in the particular section. The PLOS based article is checked accordingly. 3. The Literature Review is weakly developed. I suggest authors write the Literature Review section in paragraphs rather than in the current format. Here too, please refer to earlier published papers in PLOS One for guidance. Ans: Literature survey is changed into the paragraph according to the comment. 4. In Kong et al. [32], the authors wrote, "Then I will analyze them based on the traditional theory of the tourism industry." This sentence is not connected anywhere. Please ensure all paragraphs and sentences are well-written and connected. Ans: Reference [32] explanation changed according to the comment. [32] presents a novel real-time processing system and Internet of Things (IoT) application designed to facilitate the development of cultural tourism. The utilization of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors and big data analytics is employed to effectively monitor and manage tourism resources. The system conducts real-time data processing from many sources in order to generate valuable insights that can inform decision-making processes. Furthermore, it integrates sophisticated algorithms to optimize the allocation of resources and improve the visitor experience, all while fostering the preservation of cultural assets. 5. The Methods section is not properly developed for this study. I have found it in various places but not in the specific point. I, therefore, suggest authors write it after the Literature Review section and then follow their logical argument. Please refer to published papers in PLOS One for guidance. It will help to develop their argument as well as maintain the standard of the journal. Ans: The methodology section is checked according to the comment. The additional contents are included for improving the manuscript efficiency. The primary aim of this system is to promote the sustainable and rational development of tourism, while simultaneously ensuring the protection of environmental and cultural resources. The objective is to achieve a state of equilibrium that promotes both economic expansion via tourism and the conservation of natural resources, ecological systems, and cultural legacy. The system seeks to enhance decision-making processes pertaining to public services, infrastructure, and resource allocation in the tourism industry through the utilization of a fuzzy genetic hybrid approach. The proposed hybrid methodology integrates the advantageous aspects of fuzzy logic, which possesses the capability to effectively address uncertainties and imprecise data, with genetic algorithms, which provide efficient search and optimization techniques. The system aims to optimize the beneficial outcomes of tourism while mitigating any adverse effects on the environment and cultural values, employing a synergistic approach. In essence, the primary objective is to advance responsible tourism strategies that foster the enduring sustainability of destinations, so guaranteeing the ability of forthcoming generations to value and partake in their natural and cultural heritage. 6. I suggest combining Section 3, Section 4, and Section 5 under a single heading. It could be titled "Purpose Model/Method" as it includes mathematical and other technical aspects showing how it can go vis-a-vis. This type of heading leaves a greater impression on the readers. Ans: The section 3, section 4 and section 5 titles come under proposed model. 7. Instead of 'Discussion', consider using different headings such as "Result Analysis" or "Cumulative Analysis." Ans: Heading changed accordingly. 8. Replace the heading "Summary" with "Conclusion" and ensure it is written properly. Ans: Heading changed accordingly. 9. Apart from Background and Literature Review, the paper is not cited properly. It needs to be developed as a research paper. Please adhere to the standards set by PLOS One for writing. Ans: References are checked and cited properly according to the journal format and standards. 10. One important observation is that this manuscript has not been well-cited and does not use previous papers as references. References and citations are limited only to the literature review, and thereafter, all writing is done without any scientific support. It needs to cite and compare other studies and findings with the proposed model presented in this paper and other sections of the paper. Ans: Citations are checked and the proposed method having the contribution of this work. There is no need to citation for proposed method explanation which is the main contribution of the work. In addition, the citation and explanations are related to the journal standard. Since this paper proposes new insights which could take a bigger shape in the future, it is worth publishing. However, the development of the current form is very weak and requires professional writing. Following PLOS One guidelines could be beneficial. Reviewer #2: The first heading of the paper should be INTRODUCTION rather than Background. Ans: Heading changed according to the comment. The term in the first paragraph of the paper "social Culture legacy" should be "social culture legacy" or "Social Culture Legacy". Ans: Changed into social culture legacy The review of literature is in chronological order. It should be systematic and logical. This section requires overall revision. The section should conclude to the research gap addressed in this research. Furthermore, the literature should be enriched with the insights from the most recent studies on the role of tourism and its impact on socio-economic life and environment. For instance, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211000480 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-28377-0 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080172 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-48652-5_110 Ans: These papers are included in the literature survey according to the comment. Ahmad, N., & Ma, X. (2022) [33]examines the correlation between the growth of tourism and the occurrence of environmental contamination in various socioeconomic brackets of nations. This study employs panel data analysis to investigate the influence of various factors, including tourist arrivals, tourism receipts, and tourism investment, on air pollution, water pollution, and CO2 emissions. The results indicate a multifaceted relationship between the expansion of tourism and the deterioration of the environment, underscoring the necessity for the implementation of sustainable tourism laws and practices. The authors offer suggestions for mitigating the negative environmental impacts associated with the rise of tourism. Ali, S et al. 2023 [34] examines the ecological consequences of global tourism, taking into account the influence of policy ambiguity, renewable energy, and service sector production. Drawing upon data obtained from prominent tourist locations, this study utilizes sophisticated econometric methodologies to examine the impact of these variables on carbon emissions and ecological footprints. The results of the study demonstrate complex interconnections, indicating that the presence of policy uncertainty poses obstacles to the adoption of sustainable practices. Conversely, the rise of renewable energy and the service sector have the potential to alleviate environmental deterioration resulting from tourism activities. The policy recommendations put out by the authors aim to enhance the promotion of environmental sustainability within the tourism industry. García-Madurga, et al. 2023 [35] provides a comprehensive analysis of the evaluations pertaining to the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the tourism sector. The process involves a methodical examination of available literature studies to consolidate the present status of AI implementation in different areas of the tourism industry. The research emphasizes the capacity of artificial intelligence (AI) technology to augment tourism experiences, operations, and decision-making procedures, while also revealing areas of deficiency and promising avenues for future investigation. Bulchand-Gidumal, J. (2022) [36] investigates the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on the travel, tourism, and hospitality industries. This study examines a range of artificial intelligence (AI) applications, including chatbots, recommendation systems, and predictive analytics, emphasizing its capacity to improve customer experiences and operational efficiency. The chapter additionally examines the obstacles and ethical implications associated with the implementation of artificial intelligence in certain sectors. There is no comprehensive discussion on the results. Ans: The result and discussion described in section 4, the comparative analysis is conducted for various number of visitors. The related description described in section 4. The Summary section needs revision. Ans: Summary revised according to the comment. The system's efficiency was assessed using the suggestion ratio, which ensured a 48.58% success rate, a development rate of 0.105%, a 4-factor detection rate, and a review-based assessment of 55.5% for a sample size of 5,000 visitors. First of all the authors should discuss the findings of the study. Ans: Findings of the study is included in the end of the conclusion. The system's efficiency was assessed using the suggestion ratio, which ensured a 48.58% success rate, a development rate of 0.105%, a 4-factor detection rate, and a review-based assessment of 55.5% for a sample size of 5,000 visitors. The most relevant policy implications followed by the limitations and future directions of research should be spelled out. Ans: One potential constraint may pertain to the availability and quality of data, as the system is dependent on complete data inputs in order to conduct precise analysis. Subsequent investigations may delve into the integration of supplementary data sources and the enhancement of data preparation methodologies. Furthermore, it is recommended to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the system's performance in various tourism sites in order to improve its applicability and resilience. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306718.r002
3 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Agnieszka Konys, Editor PONE-D-24-08338R1Analyzing Intelligent Tourism Development and public services based on a Fuzzy Genetic Hybrid System to Promote Environmental and cultural valuesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lou, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has satisfied our scientific requirements for publication. However, our editorial team have significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. PLOS ONE requires that published manuscripts use language which is 'clear, correct, and unambiguous', see our criteria for publication at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5. We therefore request that you revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text. We suggest you have a fluent English-language speaker thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (https://www.aje.com/go/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Please note that we will not be able to proceed with publication of your manuscript until the concerns above are addressed. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: * The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript * A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) * A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Joanna Tindall Staff Editor on behalf of Agnieszka Konys, Ph.D. 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.] [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.0306718.r003
Revision 2
17 Jun 2024 Author Response 1. We therefore request that you revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text. We suggest you have a fluent English-language speaker thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Ans: Proofreading is done. Grammatical errors have been rectified. 2. 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. Ans: The retracted article has not been cited in this manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306718.r004
24 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Agnieszka Konys, Editor Analyzing Intelligent Tourism Development and Public Services Based on a Fuzzy Genetic Hybrid System to Promote Environmental and Cultural Values PONE-D-24-08338R2 Dear Dr. Lou, 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, Agnieszka Konys, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306718.r005
Formally Accepted
27 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Agnieszka Konys, Editor PONE-D-24-08338R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lou, 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. Agnieszka Konys Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306718.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 .