PONE-D-23-23886Picture Perfect Science Communication: Informational Labels in 3D Data Visualization for Public EngagementPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jensen,

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.

============================== Though the topic is interesting, the aim and motivation for the study (including the formal proposition of research questions or hypotheses to be tested) and the methodology (which may look too simple to warrant significant results) are lacking. You should refer to the specific comments made by the reviewer to improve your paper. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2023 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,

Maurizio Naldi

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"Would like to thank the research participants. This research was funded by The Brinson Foundation as part of the Civic Science Fellows program. The SciWise initiative (sciwise.org) also provided support via the survey instrument. User experience improvements to the survey instrument were made by Dr. Aaron M. Jensen (Institute for Methods Innovation, methodsinnovation.org). "

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: 

"All authors worked on the grant, but PI was KB. There was no grant number. Funder: The Brinson Foundation. https://brinsonfoundation.org

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

[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: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: For starters, this paper has an interesting topic that has the potential to advance the understanding of science communication through data visualization. That being said, this paper requires a lot of improvement before it is ready for publication.

There are some fundamental aspects of a typical research article (i.e., a theoretical framework, formally proposed hypotheses and research questions, etc.) that are lacking in this paper. I have listed some of the main things that can be addressed. This is not an exhausted list.

--

Major issues

1. While studies don't need to be complicated to be valuable, your study seems too simple (i.e. this is a single factorial design with two conditions). Many studies have examined data visualization in science communication. I would suggest one or more of the following to fix this:

a. add in another variable,

b. provide further reasoning for your paper's ability to move science communication in data visualization literature forward, or

c. mention your study's simplicity as a limitation in your limitations section

*Also, you could argue that your are adding to existing, similar lit related to data visualization in science communication as a form of replication to enhance this research area in science communication.

2. While you mention what you are doing, there are no formally proposed hypotheses or research questions in this paper. These are important to have, because they provide structure for the rest of your paper.

Your lack of research questions and hypotheses make your results section confusing in terms of what you are trying to specifically accomplish with your collected data in this paper (aside from your overarching question on your audience’s perceptions of videos with or without labels).

Hypotheses can straighten out your paper for you and the reader pertaining to what variables you are measuring, hint at what statistical analyses you will be using, and whether your findings were significant or not. It makes writing your discussion a lot easier too.

3. On pg. 6, in the last paragraph of your literature review you mentioned entities like level of immersion yet there's no section in your literature review that covers this topic. Level of immersion is an important concept to address and elaborate on for papers covering anything with visual technology or media.

4. There is no formally introduced theoretical framework in this paper. Is it the hierarchy of cinematic scientific visualization needs? If so, give it its own section and elaborate on how this theory pertains to your study in your lit review. Otherwise, there are many theoretical frameworks (social and psychological) that would work well with this article’s topic.

5. At the beginning of the method section, you mentioned that this is an experiment, but then you don't include some specificities involved in an experimental design. For example, your factorial design is not listed (it would be a single factorial design with 2 conditions for this study).

You mentioned conditions, but you are not concrete enough about what independent variables are being manipulated within each condition. Explaining these things and including a diagram of the variables you're manipulating, your mediating and moderating variables, and your outcome variables would be really helpful to those who are and are not familiar with your research.

6. Your pilot study explanation is not clear enough. You need to explain what these adjustments were to your labels. You should add-in statistics substantiating the validity of your examined variables in your pilot to enhance the validity of your manipulations in your main study as well.

7. For your collected sample, you mention fully completed and partially completed responses. I had to pull out a calculator to figure out how you got 577 participants, because you don't explain whether you kept the partially completed responses or deleted them. You need to clearly explain what respondents you used for your data analysis.

8. Your instrument section should be at the beginning of the method section, not the end.

9. Your instrument section just states “finally, they answered a series of attitudinal and learning-related questions to measure their level of understanding of key content covered in the film” – you need to state what each of these measures are and a citation for each one on where you got the measure from.

10. You need a section in your methods section that explain every outcome variable, control variable, and attention checking question that you measured in your survey. Each measure listed in that section should have a definition of the measure, an in-text citation for the source got the measure from, the items in each measure, whether the measure was a Likert or semantic differential scale, the number of items in the measure, and the Cronbach's alpha level. Each Cronbach's alpha should be above .7 and have more than three items to be considered a reliable measure. If it's below, provide rationalization for why you are still using the measure.

11. There is no power analysis or reasoning shown to establish why you chose to collect a sample size of n=577 participants. Without sample size reasoning, you have no way of knowing if your results are due to chance or are genuine.

A power analysis establishes an acceptable probability of making a type 1 or type 2 error for rejecting or failing to reject your null hypothesis for your experiment’s given circumstances.

Minor issues

1. There are statements in this paper that need in-text citations for support. For example, on pg. 3, the statement “One promising science communication approach that has gained increasing attention in recent years is cinematic-style 3D data visualizations” needs citations. There are parts throughout the lit review that need evidence either through a citation or your own personal reasoning.

2. Add in a model with all of your study's variables, and add in more tables for your data results (like your participant demographics). Then, just have the reader refer to them.

3. For your methods, you really only need the following sections: an intro after the Methods section title stating something like: "Study one was conducted using a single (with two levels: label and no label), between-subjects, factorial design via an online experiment." Then a Participants (talk about how you attained your sample, sampling method, sample size, power analysis, and reasoning as to way your sample and sampling method are appropriate for your study based on your variables used), Procedure and Stimulus, Measures, and Analytical Approach section.

--

Again, this is paper has a great idea in terms of extending knowledge in the field of science communication through data visualization. While this is not an exhaustive list, I tried to address the items that needed the most attention in this paper.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-23-23886R1Picture Perfect Science Communication: How Public Audiences Respond to Informational Labels in Cinematic-Style 3D Data VisualizationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jensen,

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 paper has been re-examined by the previous reviewer. No substantial modifications are required, but just a number of editorial modifications.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 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,

Maurizio Naldi

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: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their tedious and thoughtful feedback on my comments. Each of my comments has been either addressed adequately, or the authors have provided ample reasoning for why items were kept as is in the manuscript.

I have one larger edit and a few small, minor edits for the authors to make, and then I am comfortable with accepting this manuscript for publication.

Major Edit:

1. You provide some great information and reasoning in your discussion section; however, your discussion section should dive into the “why” for your results a little more deeply. While many of your results were not significant (and you are of course not supposed to make inferences on non-significant results), you can still provide thoughtful reasoning as to why you think a relationship may not have occurred. For example, on page 22, you state:

“The three items used to evaluate the immersive nature of the videos – ease of mind, attention focus, and feeling as if in space – showed no statistically significant differences between the labeled and unlabeled videos.”

You could provide a sentence or two for each one (ease of mind, attention focus, and feeling as if in space) explaining why you think there was not a relationship between the variables that were tested. You can talk about the implications of these non-significant findings for this article’s area of research more deeply as well.

Many readers go straight to the discussion section of a research paper when looking for research to cite so this can help increase the number of times your article gets cited in future research.

Minor Edits:

1. There is an instance on page 18 in the second paragraph of that page where an in-text citation reads “Error! Reference source not found.” Just make sure instances like these are fixed in the manuscript or provide reasoning for why these are written this way.

2. On page 22, in the first paragraph of the Discussion section, add a “)” after 574 in this sentence: “A mean score of 80.74 out of 100 represented a generally positive sentiment about video quality (n=574.” Again, while this manuscript is well-written, just make sure any little grammatical instances like this one are corrected throughout the manuscript.

3. On page 23, there is a link to a blog post embedded in this sentence: “To do this, we believe in taking an evidence-based communication approach, with audience research in a project to systematically test different design options.” Make sure to remove instances like this throughout the manuscript.

4. Some of the tables go off the page. This may be fixed when the manuscript is formatted after being accepted for publication; however, you could adjust the dimensions of these to fit the page.

--

Lastly, I know the R&R process for a journal article publication can be rigorous and stressful, but (as you likely know) it is all to create a higher-quality article for the journal and the authors. I am excited to see this article get published.

**********

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: 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.

PONE-D-23-23886R2Picture Perfect Science Communication: How Public Audiences Respond to Informational Labels in Cinematic-Style 3D Data VisualizationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jensen,

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 comply with all the revision requests. They do not imply further research work, but may require extensive editorial work and argumentation.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 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,

Maurizio Naldi

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.

Picture Perfect Science Communication: How Public Audiences Respond to Informational Labels in Cinematic-Style 3D Data Visualization

PONE-D-23-23886R3

Dear Dr. Jensen,

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,

Maurizio Naldi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: