Arabic within culture forensic interviews: Arabic native speaking lay-observer truth and lie accuracy, confidence, and verbal cue selection

Coral J. Dando; Alexandra L. Sandham; Charlotte Sibbons; Paul J. Taylor

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310384

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 16, 2024
30 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Dipima Buragohain, Editor PONE-D-24-12342Arabic within culture investigative interviews: Arabic native speaking lay-observer truth and lie accuracy, confidence, and verbal cue selection.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dando, 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 Sep 13 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, Dipima Buragohain Guest 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work was funded by the U.S. Government’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) awarded to the first author - Contract DJF-16-1200-V-0000737. Statements of fact, opinion and analysis in the article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the HIG or the U.S. Government. We would like to thank Amelia Dickinson for her work as a part-time Research Assistant, data manager, and coder on this project.” 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 funded by the U.S. Government’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) awarded to the first author - Contract DJF-16-1200-V-0000737. Statements of fact, opinion and analysis in the article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the HIG or the U.S. Government.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Author, Thank you for your paper. Kindly revise the manuscript as per the reviewer feedback and resubmit. Thank you. [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes 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: I think that the topic is interesting and the discussion is good. There are some problems in the language and I believe that the author should review the paper. Also, I think that the author should be clear in presenting his ideas . Reviewer #2: Strengthen the Introduction: While the introduction provides a solid background, it could benefit from a clearer articulation of the research gap and the specific contributions of the study. A more direct statement of the study's objectives would enhance clarity. Enhance the Discussion Section: The discussion could be expanded to more thoroughly explore the implications of the findings in relation to existing literature. Comparing the results with previous studies on deception detection could provide deeper insights into the significance of the findings. Clarify Statistical Analysis: While the results are presented clearly, providing more detail on the statistical methods used for analysis would enhance transparency. Including information on the software used and the rationale for selecting specific tests could improve the rigor of the methodology. Visual Aids: Incorporating more visual aids, such as graphs or tables, to summarize key findings would enhance the presentation of results and make the data more accessible to readers. Conclude with a Stronger Summary: The conclusion could be more impactful by summarizing the key findings and implications in a concise manner. A strong concluding statement that encapsulates the overall significance of the research would leave a lasting impression on readers. ****** 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: Yasir Alotaibi Reviewer #2: Yes: Atika Dyah Perwita ******** [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-24-12342.pdf.Rev.06.07.2024.pdf1.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-12342.pdf.Rev.06.07.2024.pdf11.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Points.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Points.ref.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-12342.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310384.r001
Revision 1
12 Aug 2024 Author Response Dear Editor & Reviewers We thank the reviewers for their comments, which are very similar, largely stylistic in nature, and rather general in terms of perceived manuscript conventions. We have addressed each of the comments as appropriate below, and in the resubmission. We have addressed all editorial requirements (see below). Finally we have addressed the in-text comments added to the manuscript by the reviewer and adjusted the manuscript where appropriate or responded where adjustments were not/could not be made. We look forward to hearing from you in due course. Regards Prof Coral Dando PhD. Editorial Comments 1. We have removed funding related statements form the acknowledgements. 2. We have removed figures from within the manuscript and uploaded these separately as directed. 3. There are no alterations to refences list other than adding references relevant to the reviewer comments. 4. We have adjusted the data viability statement to make our raw data available on acceptance. Reviewer 1 1. “Introduction” must state the research gap, prior studies on the subject (including those that differ from the prior studies), and the relationship of research problems to the broader interest. In our initial submission, we had made the research gap very clear throughout the introduction, and the research itself is clearly situated in the ‘real world’ and as such links the research to a broader challenge for national and international criminal justice. For example, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Introduction clearly highlight the importance of this research to the broader interest. The ‘Deception and Culture’ section cites numerous studies of relevance but also highlights how these studies to not meet the clear gap in understanding as highlighted throughout this section. The ‘Current Research’ section moves to precis all the preceding information to funnel down to offer a clear rational. We are able to offer additional examples if requested. 2. “The Current Research” must state the focus of research that is different from the previous research In the second paragraph of the ‘The Current Research’ section of the introduction we have more clearly stated how this research differs from the previous research – specifically that there is no research of direct relevance in terms of mimicking the real world, but that some loosely related research does exist but that this provides mixed findings which may loosely ‘speak’ to elements of the problem space outlined in this manuscript, but does not offer strong insight. We have referenced the published research throughout the Introduction to allow readers to access the primary sources (which is best practice), thus allowing us to keep an acceptable world count for this manuscript towards ‘presenting and discussing our research concisely’ as required for publication in PLOSONE. 3. “Discussion”: must state the research findings, namely the research's keywords that might serve as a guide for problem-solving, based on literature reviews/theoretical framework. We do not really understand this comment. The research findings in terms of the primary results and their implications have all been discussed throughout the Discussion in turn. But, towards trying to resolve this reviewer’s comment and so as not to slow the review process still further we i) believe problem solving frameworks are not relevant for this manuscript, particularly given the research paradigm and research questions posed in the itroduction, ii) we have already refenced numerous highly relevant, current theoretical frameworks and associated research publications both in the Introduction and Discussion, using each to allow us to interpret our findings – e.g., truth default theory, cognitive load theory, linguistic communication style. Our results are clearly linked to all of these theorical frameworks, throughout the discussion, and discussed in this regard, in turn, iii) simply re-stating of the results at the start of the discussion would be far too repetitive in our opinion, particularly given the comments/requirements of reviewers provide a summary of the results again at the end of the results section – which we have now done – hence a third repetition of the results would be unnecessary and would be in contravention of the PLOSONE publication requirements in terms of ‘presenting and discussing research concisely’. Reviewer 2 1. Abstract must present the research problem, method, main findings, conclusions and implications of the main findings. It is our understanding that PlosOne do not encourage nor request abstracts to be written with subheadings, which may have resulted in a lack of clarity for this reviewer. We had already included the research problem, main findings, conclusion and implications elements in the original submission, but the implications element may not have been as strong as it could be and so we have strengthened this as requested by this reviewer. We have also revisited the abstract in its entirety to improve clarity for this reviewer in terms of strengthening all elements while ensuring the abstract is succinct, while providing a fair overview. 2. “Introduction” must state the research gap, prior studies on the subject (including those that differ from the prior studies), and the relationship of research problems to the broader interest. This is an exact replication of a comment from reviewer 1 – please refer to our response to his/her comments above. 3. “The Current Research” must state the focus of research that is different from the previous research This is an exact replication of a comment from reviewer 1 – please refer to our response to his/her comments above. 4. “Discussion”: must state the research findings, namely the research's keywords that might serve as a guide for problem-solving, based on literature reviews/theoretical framework. This is an exact replication of a comment from reviewer 1 – please refer to our response to his/her comments above. 5. In order for non-experts in the subject of study as well as experts to grasp, figures 1 and 2, as well as tables 1-4, must be presented in a clear and understandable manner. PLOSONE is a broad audience publication that publishes primary research that contributes to the base of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is our understanding that PLOSONE is not a practitioner outlet and as far as we are aware not aimed at non-experts in terms of scientific rigour, data analysis nor results reporting. Our tables and figures are APA/PLOSONE formatting compliant and include all the required statistical information to allow replication as well as quick and easy access to the relevant results in more detail, thus supplementing the written information. Were we to reduce the number of tables, the results section would become far more difficult to navigate since we would have to either i) produce a very large table with all of the results (means, SDs, 95% CIs) for all of the analyses combined which would be difficult to navigate for all readers irrespective of experience OR ii) include all of this information within the text which would result in a very text heavy results section, thus making this element rather turgid and again very difficult to navigate for all readers. Our Figures are clear and APA complaint, and understandable for all, irrespective of experience and expertise. As such we retain the tables and figures in their current from, but would be happy to discuss further following editorial guidance. 6. "Conclusion" must present the main findings in accordance with the research objectives, the implications of the main research findings in a broader context, and research directions that can be carried out in the future. We had already provided a conclusion in the original submission but have now strengthened this element of the manuscript to support reviewer understanding, but are only able to offer a cautious and scientifically robust conclusion, and will always retain this stance, since this is just one study. We had already offered suggestions for future research, and so retain this information. In-text manuscript comments One of the pdf files simply has comments on the manuscript that appear to act as an aid memoir for the reviewer – this type of review/commentary is unusual and having looked at the commentary, all points have are already covered in the initial manuscript submission. In the second file a series of interesting comments have been offered many of which have been addressed. 1. Additional references re. culture have been added earlier in the introduction and the Refs. Section adjusted accordingly. 2. The ‘problem space’ has now been defined earlier in the Introduction. 3. We have included ‘analysis approach’ information to aid understanding. 4. We have added a brief results summary at the end of the results section –we are not entirely comfortable with this repetition, the reviewers believe this is necessary and so we have complied 5. All of the results have been very clearly linked to the existing literature (such as there is) in the discussion in the initial submission as one would expect. We have revisited this element of the manuscript but given the paucity of directly relevant research we retain the format of the original discussion in this regard and would not be comfortable in overstating nor over discussing. 6. Again, we have already clearly interpreted the results in the discussion and linked all back to the relevant literature in the initial submission. 7. We have added a stronger concluding statement BUT we retain our cautious stance as guided by best practice whereby researchers should not overreach in terms of significance of their research and application implications – to that end we can only offer a cautious and scientifically robust conclusion, and will always retain this stance, since this is just one study. 8. Videoing of interviews is not innovative – this is typical research practice in interviewing contexts (to allow analysis) and gold standard investigative practice in many jurisdictions, worldwide – we have adjusted the manuscript method to explain this to readers who may be unfamiliar with/unaware of this approach. 9. We do not include a research process diagramme for the interviewee method, since this element of the research paradigm has been summarised in this manuscript only for clarity and for replication purposes. This element is not part of the method for the research reported here, and as we have highlighted is fully published elsewhere, and data is available on OSF. However, we concede that by including so much detail about the interviewees in the first submission we have given the false impression that these data are part of this research. Accordingly, we have adjusted the manuscript and referred to the interviews as forensic interview videos, and reduced the procedural information in the methods section, but we have included a reference as to where this information can be found in full. We are sorry for this confusion and hope this adjustment improves clarity. 10. Ethical comments have been addressed, but we are surprised at having to include so much additional fine grain detail in a manuscript of this nature, but hopefully this will meet reviewer requirements. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reveiwers Plos One August 2024.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310384.r002
30 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Dipima Buragohain, Editor Arabic within culture forensic interviews: Arabic native speaking lay-observer truth and lie accuracy, confidence, and verbal cue selection. PONE-D-24-12342R1 Dear Dr. Dando, 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, Dipima Buragohain Guest Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310384.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Dipima Buragohain, Editor PONE-D-24-12342R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dando, 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. Dipima Buragohain Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310384.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 .