Intersectionality informed and narrative-shifting whole school approaches for LGBTQ+ secondary school student mental health: A UK qualitative study

Amy Morgan; Emily Cunningham; Juliet Dyrud; Liberty Elliott; Lauren Ige; Gemma Knowles; Lukasz Konieczka; Angela Mascolo; Ibrahim Sabra; Sara Sabra; E. Singh; Katharine A. Rimes; Charlotte Woodhead

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306864

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 8, 2023
10 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Emily Lund, Editor PONE-D-23-28894Intersectionality informed and narrative-shifting whole school approaches for LGBTQ+ secondary school student mental health: A UK qualitative study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Woodhead, 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. ============================== Thank you for this interesting submission on an important topic. In addition to addressing the comments of the reviewer (please also note the comments the reviewer made throughout the attached document in your revision), below are some additional comments for consideration: -I believe that the introduction and theoretical framework sections could benefit from more citation and discussion of previous research involving intersectionality in LGBTQ+ youth. -Were the authors specifically interested in particular types of intersectionality as they relate to LGBTQ+ youth? (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, rurality/urbanicity, etc)? -More detail on the content of the interview guide would be helpful--the authors should also consider including this as an appendix in the manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 24 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, Emily Lund Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by the TRIUMPH (Transdisciplinary Research for the Improvement of Youth Mental Public Health) Network which is funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UKRI under grant ES/S004351/1. AM, CW, and GK are part supported by the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King's College London [ES/S012567/1]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ESRC or King’s College London.” 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We would like to thank River Újhadbor for their support with workshops and advice related to the study. This work was supported by the TRIUMPH (Transdisciplinary Research for the Improvement of Youth Mental Public Health) Network which is funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UKRI under grant ES/S004351/1. AM, CW, and GK are part supported by the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King's College London [ES/S012567/1]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ESRC or King’s College London.” We note that you have provided funding information that is 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: “This work was supported by the TRIUMPH (Transdisciplinary Research for the Improvement of Youth Mental Public Health) Network which is funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UKRI under grant ES/S004351/1. AM, CW, and GK are part supported by the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King's College London [ES/S012567/1]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ESRC or King’s College London.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions) For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission: 1) A description of the data set and the third-party source 2) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set 3) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have 4) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for this interesting submission on an important topic. In addition to addressing the comments of the reviewer (please also note the comments the reviewer made throughout the attached document in your revision), below are some additional comments for consideration: -I believe that the introduction and theoretical framework sections could benefit from more citation and discussion of previous research involving intersectionality in LGBTQ+ youth. -Were the authors specifically interested in particular types of intersectionality as they relate to LGBTQ+ youth? (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, rurality/urbanicity, etc)? -More detail on the content of the interview guide would be helpful--the authors should also consider including this as an appendix in 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: 1. Language and grammar corrections should be made, as well as edited for clarity. This paper does not seem well-edited for spelling, grammar, and syntax with several errors throughout. There are several sentence fragments and run-ons. 2. Vague declarations can be improved through specification and supporting evidence. Several topics and terms are brought up with no reference to definitions or reasons for methodological choices. 3. There was confusion regarding who exactly was sampled, their ages, and whether or not they were LGBTQ+. 4. Methodological discussion was sound, with need for rationale/discussion of chosen theory to support choices. 5. Quotes included important themes not necessarily discussed by authors. Context and discussions of how many participants discussed each topic could be helpful. 6. Overall, a lack of definitions and consistency is creating for a confusing narrative which, at this point, does not present clear goals and results that could impact the community. This manuscript has good potential, but gets lost in the grammar mistakes and lack of clarity. See comments attached. ****** 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: Dannie Klooster, MS ******** [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: PONE-D-23-28894_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306864.r001
Revision 1
30 Jan 2024 Author Response Dear reviewers, Thank you for your considered, helpful and clear comments on our paper entitled, “Intersectionality informed and narrative-shifting whole school approaches for LGBTQ+ secondary school student mental health: A UK qualitative study”. We have made tracked changes in the revised document in response to the comments on grammar and clarification of terms (e.g., ‘young people’), as well as on content. We focus on the content comments here for clarity. 1. More information about coproduction as an approach. Thank you, we agree and have added a definition of coproduction, as well as brief rationale for taking this approach in research with young people (p.5 lines 17-21) 2. Add %/numbers of how many people expressed which topics for reference. Thank you for this suggestion which we do understand. However, we have chosen not to report percentages as it suggests a more positivist approach than that taken. This may have been appropriate if we had used an approach such as content analysis but we consider it incompatible with the reflexive thematic analytic approach we took. For example, see for a discussion: Neale, J., Miller, P., & West, R. (2014). Reporting quantitative information in qualitative research: guidance for authors and reviewers. Addiction, 109, 175–176. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/add.12408 3. Page 14, line 2. “could add more context here about cultural differences in school settings, parent-teacher/staff interactions, and WSAs' approach to these discussions.” We very much agree that these points merit more detailed and nuanced discussion. For the purposes of this paper and the need to balance succinctness in word count with detail, we decided to take an approach which provided more of an overarching perspective. We aim to offer a second paper which delves more deeply into context, parent/teacher interactions and WSA approaches to community and parental engagement. To acknowledge this, we have added a line into the discussion (p.21 lines 10-12) 4. On terminology (female’/male vs woman/man) we agree, thank you. This initially reflected how the diversity monitoring form was structured but agree that it is inappropriate, so have amended to ‘woman’ and ‘man’ throughout. 5. Clarify ‘deficit thinking’. Thank you we have added a reference and description (p.18 lines 1-2) In addition, we note and appreciate the additional comments provided by the Editor. Please find below our responses to these: 6. I believe that the introduction and theoretical framework sections could benefit from more citation and discussion of previous research involving intersectionality in LGBTQ+ youth. Thank you, we were mindful of the length of submission and of providing a background that would speak to research about school experiences in particular. We have gladly added the following references which together provide a broader perspective, while acknowledging the limitations in scope to offer a comprehensive review of the literature. Moffitt U, Juang LP, Syed M. Intersectionality and youth identity development research in Europe. Frontiers in psychology. 2020 Jan 31;11:78. Huang YT, Ma YT, Craig SL, Wong DF, Forth MW. How intersectional are mental health interventions for sexual minority people? A systematic review. LGBT health. 2020 Jul 1;7(5):220-36. Kim SE, Toomey RB, Anhalt K. Latinx sexual minority youth's identity development and experiences with preparation for bias. Family Relations. 2023 72(3): 948-65. 7. Were the authors specifically interested in particular types of intersectionality as they relate to LGBTQ+ youth? (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, rurality/urbanicity, etc)? Thank you for this clarification. Our study predominantly focused on intersections between race/ethnicity (and/or) religion/faith and LGBTQ+ status. While we originally intended to explore how these intersections may be differentially experienced in urban and more rural areas, in practice our sample was predominantly urban. We have added clarification in the results (p.8 line 24). 8. More detail on the content of the interview guide would be helpful--the authors should also consider including this as an appendix in the manuscript. Thank you, we agree this would provide important detail and context to the results. We therefore have added further detail in the methods section including example questions from each topic guide (p.7 lines 7-20), as well as submitted the topic guide as an appendix. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306864.r002
22 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor PONE-D-23-28894R1Intersectionality informed and narrative-shifting whole school approaches for LGBTQ+ secondary school student mental health: A UK qualitative study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Woodhead, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The authors are advised to conduct a thorough revision of the manuscript to improve readability Please submit your revised manuscript by May 06 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, Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, 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.] 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: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 authors have done an excellent job addressing the majority of the issues brought up and created a stronger, more organized manuscript. The minor revisions in the document attached zero in on grammar errors (missing comments, run-on sentences, missing words/phrases). After these minor changes are made, the document should be ready for publication. Excellent work! ****** 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: Dannie Klooster ******** [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: PONE-D-23-28894_R1_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306864.r003
Revision 2
13 May 2024 Author Response Thank you for your feedback on the revisions made to our paper, ‘Intersectionality informed and narrative-shifting whole school approaches for LGBTQ+ secondary school student mental health: A UK qualitative study.” (Reference PONE-D-23-28894R1). Please find below a point-by-point response to the issues raised in your e-mail. The authors are advised to conduct a thorough revision of the manuscript to improve readability Thank you, we have re-read the manuscript to appraise readability and note that we have responded to and revised all suggestions for wording, grammar and phrasing made by the reviewer. We are confident that the manuscript is readable as it stands. 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 Thank you, we have checked our references and there are no retracted references. We have made several revisions to the referencing format after checking against the PLOS ONE reference guide to ensure they are all complete and correct. Reviewer #1: The authors have done an excellent job addressing the majority of the issues brought up and created a stronger, more organized manuscript. The minor revisions in the document attached zero in on grammar errors (missing comments, run-on sentences, missing words/phrases). After these minor changes are made, the document should be ready for publication. Excellent work! Thank you for your helpful feedback on the manuscript and revisions – we are grateful for your comments and have made those changes suggested in the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306864.r004
25 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor Intersectionality informed and narrative-shifting whole school approaches for LGBTQ+ secondary school student mental health: A UK qualitative study. PONE-D-23-28894R2 Dear Dr. Woodhead, 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, Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all comments and your patience in waiting for feedback. Excellent work, congratulations! Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Dannie Klooster Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306864.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor PONE-D-23-28894R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Woodhead, 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. Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306864.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 .