Personality in motion: How intuition and sensing personality traits relate to lower limb rebound performance

Cyrille Gindre; Aurélien Patoz; Bastiaan Breine; Thibault Lussiana

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310130

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 14, 2024
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Yaodong Gu, Editor PONE-D-24-17655Greater rebound power of the lower limb for intuition than sensing individualsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Patoz, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Yaodong Gu 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 upload a copy of S1 File. Personal protection committee EST I to which you refer in your text on page 14. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. If the Supplementary file is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. Additional Editor Comments: The methods part shall be more detailing described, it must prove to be reliable. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Review comment This manuscript entitled “Greater rebound power of the lower limb for intuition than sensing individuals” primarily aimed to examine the relation between personality traits assessed by the MBTI test and the biomechanical differences in the RP of the lower limb. The results of this study provide guidance for human movement science and sports science. While it is a very interesting topic. But I think this manuscript has some flaws to fill in before it can be published in a journal. There are several questions should be addressed, which list below. I give a minor revision for this manuscript. Specific comments 1. In the Abstract part, In the opinion of reviewer, the author provided too much background descriptions in this part, which may be too long-winded. I suggest that the authors provide more detailed descriptions of the methods, results, and conclusions of this study in this part. 2. In the introduction part, In the reviewer's opinion, lower limb biomechanics should include plantar pressure (which is closely related to key kinematics and dynamics of lower limbs). Therefore, the following studies are recommended for reference: � https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120960962 � https://doi.org/10.37190/ABB-01627-2020-02 3. “This question gains particular significance when considering tasks such as vertical jumps.” Please add a reference to support this sentence. 4. In the Materials and Methods part, “Eighty individuals, 13 females (age: 30 ± 12 years, height: 167 ± 7 cm, body mass: 61 ± 9 kg, and training hour per week: 9 ± 8 h/week) and 67 males (age: 29 ± 11 years, height: 178 ± 6 cm, body mass: 72 ± 9 kg, and training hours per week: 6 ± 4 h/week), voluntarily participated in this study.” How did the authors determine the sample size of females and males? 5. In the Discussion part, “This investigation unveiled that a penchant for abstract concepts correlates with a larger RP, indicating a more dynamic pattern.” Can you be more specific about what you mean for dynamic pattern. 6. In the Conclusion part, In the opinion of the reviewer, the description in the conclusion part was too verbose, and the reviewer suggests that the authors should abbreviate the section and focus on the main findings of this study. Reviewer #2: The study is interesting, however, the connect for how personality traits related to biomechanical functions, specifically vertical jumping is not strongly illustrated. In your study, participants were instructed to perform six consecutive hops, and repetitive performance (RP) was assessed based on these hops. Could you elaborate on why you chose to measure six consecutive hops rather than selecting the trial with the highest jump height from a session with multiple trials? Specifically, how does this approach contribute to the reliability and validity of your findings in the context of assessing RP? Given that the MBTI is a controversial tool with documented psychometric limitations and questions regarding its validity, can you elaborate on why you chose to use the MBTI for assessing personality traits in your study? How do you address the concerns about its subjectivity and limited indices in the context of evaluating the relationship between lower limb repetitive performance (RP) and personality traits? The results presented seem to indicate simple relationships between MBTI axes and biomechanical performance measures such as flight time () and repetitive performance (RP). Given the potential for more complex interactions between biomechanical performance and personality traits, could you elaborate on why the study focused on these specific measures? Additionally, how do you address the possibility that the simplicity of these results may not fully capture the nuanced relationships between personality and performance? ****** 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: Yes: Liangliang Xiang ******** [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.0310130.r001
Revision 1
11 Jul 2024 Author Response Subject: Response to the editor and reviewer Manuscript title: Personality in Motion: How intuition and sensing personality traits relate to lower limb rebound performance We would like to thank the reviewers for the useful comments. The feedback provided was helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript during the revision process. We have adapted our manuscript as suggested based on the reviewers’ comments. We have provided an answer to each comment. In addition, to facilitate the review process, we have indicated all modifications in the manuscript in RED font color, except for where we removed text. We hope that the reviewers find our responses meet their expectations. Editor 2. Please upload a copy of S1 File. Personal protection committee EST I to which you refer in your text on page 14. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Response: A copy of S1 File “Personal protection committee EST I” has been uploaded. 3. The methods part shall be more detailing described, it must prove to be reliable. Response: Following the editor's suggestion, the methods section has been expanded to provide a more detailed and reliable description. Lines 138-144 Then, RP, i.e., the plyometric characteristics of the lower limbs [21, 22], was assessed by asking participants to perform the five-repetition rebound jump test. All jumps were performed with hands placed on the hips and participants were wearing their habitual training shoes. Participants were required to jump vertically as high and as fast as possible while minimizing ground contact time (tc) and maximizing flight time (tf). Participants were also instructed to minimize knee actions (i.e., flexion and extension) during the test. Lines 151-160 The Optojump® system, connected to a personal computer, consists of two parallel bars placed 1 m apart. One bar contains light-emitting diodes positioned 3 mm above the ground, acting as the transmitter unit, while the other bar serves as the receiver unit. Every millisecond (sampling frequency of 1000 Hz), the system checks the status of the light transmission. If the light is blocked by an individual’s feet during jumping, a designated variable is set to 1. Conversely, if the light reaches the receiver, the variable is set to 0. Therefore, tc (ms) was given by the time during which the light was blocked (variable is 1), and tf (ms) by the time during which the light was transmitted (variable is 0). Then, RP for each hop was calculated following the method described in Bosco, Luhtanen (22) using the following equation (Eq. 1). Lines 162-167 Three repetitions of the test were performed with a 30 s rest. The best repetition, based on the highest RP was used for statistical analysis, to ensure the reliability and validity of the present findings in assessing RP. This approach allowed selecting the most representative performance data, minimizing the influence of variability that may occur in individual trials and provided a more accurate reflection of participants' lower limb biomechanics during vertical jumping. Reviewer 1 This manuscript entitled “Greater rebound power of the lower limb for intuition than sensing individuals” primarily aimed to examine the relation between personality traits assessed by the MBTI test and the biomechanical differences in the RP of the lower limb. The results of this study provide guidance for human movement science and sports science. While it is a very interesting topic. But I think this manuscript has some flaws to fill in before it can be published in a journal. There are several questions should be addressed, which list below. I give a minor revision for this manuscript. Response: We thank the reviewer for the general positive feedback. The answer to each specific comment can be found below. Specific comments 1. In the Abstract part, In the opinion of reviewer, the author provided too much background descriptions in this part, which may be too long-winded. I suggest that the authors provide more detailed descriptions of the methods, results, and conclusions of this study in this part. Response: The reviewer's feedback on the abstract has been duly noted. Accordingly, the background descriptions have been streamlined, and greater emphasis has been placed on providing detailed descriptions of the methods, results, and conclusions of the study in the abstract section. Lines 41-62 Embodied cognition asserts a symbiotic relationship between cognitive processes and the physical body, raising an intriguing question: could personality traits be intertwined with the biomechanical performance of the lower limb? This study aimed to explore this connection by examining how personality traits, assessed using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), relate to lower limb rebound power (RP) measured through the five-repetition rebound jump test. Eighty participants completed two sessions: a biomechanical analysis of hopping using an Optojump® system to measure contact time, flight time, and RP, and a personality traits assessment categorizing traits across four MBTI axes: extraversion-introversion (favorite world); sensing-intuition (information processing preference); thinking-feeling (decision making); and judging-perceiving (structure). Participant characteristics did not significantly differ across MBTI axes (p�0.07), minimizing potential confounding factors. Notably, individuals classified as intuitive showed significantly longer flight times (p=0.02) and larger RP (p=0.007) compared to sensing individuals, suggesting a greater reliance on the fast stretch-shortening cycle and showcasing superior use of their lower limb structures as springs. This suggests potential implications for sports performance, with intuition individuals possibly excelling in plyometric sports. However, no significant associations were found between biomechanical performance and the other three MBTI axes (p≥0.12), challenging the initial hypothesis. This research provides initial insights into the nuanced relationship between personality traits and movement patterns, indicating the potential for tailored physical interventions to enhance adherence and optimize responses in training programs. 2. In the introduction part, In the reviewer's opinion, lower limb biomechanics should include plantar pressure (which is closely related to key kinematics and dynamics of lower limbs). Therefore, the following studies are recommended for reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120960962 https://doi.org/10.37190/ABB-01627-2020-02 Response: The suggested studies on plantar pressure are more appropriately discussed in the section focused on future directions, in the discussion section of the manuscript. Here, additional metrics, such as those derived from plantar pressure, are highlighted for their relevance to understanding the key kinematics and dynamics of the lower limb. This discussion also encourages the exploration of other metrics from inverse dynamics, underscoring the study's contribution to advancing research on the interplay between personality traits and biomechanical performance of the lower limb. Lines 306-308 For instance, metrics derived from plantar pressure can be particularly valuable, as they closely relate to key kinematics and dynamics of the lower limb [36, 37]. 3. “This question gains particular significance when considering tasks such as vertical jumps.” Please add a reference to support this sentence. Response: The requested reference has been added to support the statement regarding the significance of tasks such as vertical jumps. Lines 101-103 Vertical jumps, widely used by strength and conditioning professionals, coaches, and healthcare practitioners, serve as performance tests for evaluating lower limb muscular strength [16], highlighting the significance of this question. 4. In the Materials and Methods part, “Eighty individuals, 13 females (age: 30 ± 12 years, height: 167 ± 7 cm, body mass: 61 ± 9 kg, and training hour per week: 9 ± 8 h/week) and 67 males (age: 29 ± 11 years, height: 178 ± 6 cm, body mass: 72 ± 9 kg, and training hours per week: 6 ± 4 h/week), voluntarily participated in this study.” How did the authors determine the sample size of females and males? Response: The sample sizes of females and males in the study were determined by the voluntary participation of individuals who met the inclusion criteria, without selective recruitment based on sex. The decision not to separate genders was made to maintain simplicity and ensure clarity in the study design, as well as to avoid compromising statistical power. This decision has been emphasized in the limitations of the present study. Lines 356-362 Additionally, the goal of the present study was not to account for sex differences (to maintain simplicity and ensure clarity), meaning that the recruitment process was not selective in terms of sex. Separating the genders would have also compromised statistical power. Nevertheless, considering the demonstrated but subtle differences in personality types between males and females [55], further research should prioritize examining the influence of sex on the relationship between the biomechanical performance of the lower limb and personality traits. 5. In the Discussion part, “This investigation unveiled that a penchant for abstract concepts correlates with a larger RP, indicating a more dynamic pattern.” Can you be more specific about what you mean for dynamic pattern. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. By "dynamic pattern," it is specifically meant that a larger rebound power (RP) can be achieved by reducing contact time (tc) and/or increasing flight time (tf), as outlined in Equation (1). This statement has been clarified in the discussion section of the updated manuscript. Lines 273-274 According to Eq. (1), a larger RP can be obtained by decreasing t_c and/or increasing t_f, indicating a more dynamic rebound pattern. 6. In the Conclusion part, In the opinion of the reviewer, the description in the conclusion part was too verbose, and the reviewer suggests that the authors should abbreviate the section and focus on the main findings of this study. Response: The conclusion section has been revised to abbreviate the description and emphasize the main findings of the study, as suggested by the reviewer. Lines 368-376 To conclude, the intricate connections between personality traits, as classified by the MBTI, and the biomechanical performance of the lower limb, assessed by the five-repetition rebound jump test, were unraveled by the present study. The investigation revealed a significantly larger RP for intuition than sensing individuals, indicating that intuition individuals displayed a greater reliance on the fast stretch-shortening cycle, showcasing superior use of their lower limb structures as springs. However, the study found no significant associations between biomechanical characteristics and the remaining three MBTI axes (extraversion-introversion, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving), challenging the initial hypothesis. Reviewer 2 The study is interesting, however, the connect for how personality traits related to biomechanical functions, specifically vertical jumping is not strongly illustrated. In your study, participants were instructed to perform six consecutive hops, and repetitive performance (RP) was assessed based on these hops. Could you elaborate on why you chose to measure six consecutive hops rather than selecting the trial with the highest jump height from a session with multiple trials? Specifically, how does this approach contribute to the reliability and validity of your findings in the context of assessing RP? Response: As correctly pointed out by the reviewer, the explanation about the number of trials performed and about the selection criteria to obtain the rebound power (RP) metrics was missing in the manuscript. We have addressed this concern in the updated version of the manuscript. Specifically, participants performed three repetitions of the five-repetition rebound jump test with a 30-second rest interval between each repetition. The decision to use the best repetition, based on the highest RP, for statistical analysis was made to ensure the reliability and validity of our findings in assessing RP. This approach allows us to select the most representative performance data, minimizing the influence of variability that may occur in individual trials and providing a more accurate reflection of participants' lower limb biomechanics during vertical jumping. Lines 162-167 Three repetitions of the test were performed with a 30 s rest. The best repetition, based on the highest RP was used for statistical analysis, to ensure the reliability and validity of the present findings in assessing RP. This approach allowed selecting the most representative performance data, minimizing the influence of variability that may occur in individual trials and provided a more accurate reflection of participants' lower limb biomechanics during vertical jumping. Given that the MBTI is a controversial tool with documented psychometric limitations and questions regarding its validity, can you elaborate on why you chose to use the MBTI for assessing personality traits in your study? Response: The decision to use the MBTI for assessing personality traits in our study was based on several factors. The most important one is that the MBTI was chosen over the Big Five primarily due to its nuanced approach in categorizing personality traits into distinct types for each axis, as opposed to simply indicating the presence or absence of a trait. These factors have been described in the limitation section of the manuscript. Lines 328-339 The MBTI exhibits a strong correlation with the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness (NEO) Personality Inventory, an extensively employed personality assessment tool that scrutinizes the Big Five personality traits [46, 47]. In this study, MBTI was preferred over the Big Five. The reason is mainly due to the nuanced nature of the MBTI [13]. Briefly, personality traits are assigned among two distinct categories for each axis by MBTI while the Big Five indicates the absence or presence of a given personality trait. We believe that the MBTI assigns personality traits to each axis without implying superiority of one category compared to the other while we believe that the Big Five tends to involve value judgments. Recent applications of the MBTI have delved into characterizing personality profiles for talent identification among elementary and junior high school students [48] and students within the broader population engaged in recreation and leisure [49], as well as among middle-aged male runners [50]. How do you address the concerns about its subjectivity and limited indices in the context of evaluating the relationship between lower limb repetitive performance (RP) and personality traits? Response: In addressing concerns about subjectivity and limited indices in evaluating the relationship between lower limb rebound power (RP) and personality traits, it is important to acknowledge the methodological choices made in our study. Specifically, the exclusive use of the five-repetition rebound jump test to assess RP may be perceived as subjective. However, this test was selected based on its ability to provide insights into fast stretch-shortening cycle function, which is crucial for evaluating lower limb biomechanical performance. Alternative tests, such as the countermovement jump or repetitive rebound to a metronome, could have been considered. Yet, research suggests that the countermovement jump may not effectively capture fast stretch-shortening cycle function due to extended contact times and lack of pre-activation. Similarly, repetitive rebound to a metronome often results in sub-maximal hopping, which may not fully reflect maximal muscular performance. The revised manuscript now includes several sentences addressing this concern in its limitation section. Lines 340-349 Additionally, the present findings are constrained by the exclusive use of the five-repetition rebound jump test to determine the RP of the lower limb, which could be seen as a Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response-to-reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310130.r002
26 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Yaodong Gu, Editor Personality in Motion: How intuition and sensing personality traits relate to lower limb rebound performance PONE-D-24-17655R1 Dear Dr. Patoz, 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, Yaodong Gu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Well done! 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) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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 to the authors for their additional efforts. The reviewer believes that, after revisions, this manuscript has reached the standard for publication. 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: Zixiang Gao Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310130.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yaodong Gu, Editor PONE-D-24-17655R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Patoz, 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 Professor Yaodong Gu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310130.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .