PONE-D-24-21823Hoof slip duration at impact in galloping Thoroughbred ex-racehorses trialling eight shoe-surface combinationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horan,

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 03 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

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 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 financial disclosure: 

"This research was funded by the Horserace Betting Levy Board, project 4497, Prj786, grant titled ‘S.A.F.E.R.’ (Shoe Assessment for Equine Racing)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interest section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: J.C. owns the company James Coburn AWCF Farriers Ltd., which employed H.C., L.B. and D.H. at the time of the study. J.C., P.D., H.C., L.B. and D.H. and are now registered farriers. T.P. and R.W. are the owners of EquiGait, a provider of gait analysis products and services. This does not alter our adherence to all polices on sharing data and materials. The funders had no role in the design of the study or the collection, analyses and interpretation of data."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: James Coburn AWCF Farriers Ltd.

1) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

2) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation 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 this adherence statement is not accurate and  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 both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Overall this paper provides some data on the slip in different limbs during gallop with 4 different shoeing conditions on 2 different surfaces. These observations are of potential use to underpin investigations into the development of injury in sport horses.

The measurement of hoof slip through kinematics is prone to many errors that were not mentioned or discussed although some of the causes of loss of data were mentioned in lines 120-123.

As one horse was ridden by 2 jockeys, the number of jockey/horse pairs was given as 14 for the 13 horses. It is not clear to this reviewer how this was treated in the statistics, nor whether that one horse provided data for both jockeys in all the different treatments.

It seems that not all the 13 horses that were used provided data for all the different conditions. Table 1 shows that the number of observations of hoof slip varied between 7 and 19 with more than half (17) below the number of horses for any of the 32 combinations of 4 limbs, 2 surfaces and 4 shoeing types. Hence it is clear that not all the 13 horses provided data in all the 32 possible combinations for slip in each of the limbs.

Further, in Table 1 the number of horse jockey pairs that provided data for each of the 8 experimental conditions is below 13 in all but one condition (barefoot artificial).

The authors are to be congratulated for clearly providing this data, but it does require some further discussion as to whether the surface characteristics (limitation mentioned in line 254) that were described as varying from soft to good/firm (line99) for the grass showed any relationship with the likelihood of a measurement being acquired. This might then better support the statement in Line 308 “However, overall it seems that the specific hoof in question and the surface involved have a greater influence on total slip duration than overall speed.”

Reviewer #2: Congratulations on the series of articles. My minor revision decision implies the possible correction of the following aspects:

L 83 I suggest using the International system and converting horse hand to meters.

L 108-111 and L137 there is a discrepancy between the text (A. Photograph of marker wand on the hoof.) and the additional presence in the photograph of an accelerometer mounted to the hoof.

L 223 “hinlimb” is misspelled

L 222-224 For a better accuracy and understanding, I suggest completing the cited information from Back W. et al (reference 37) with some more details: “The elbow and hip joints were more flexed at impact, at maximal extension and at maximal flexion of the leading limb, whereas the stifle joint was more extended at impact.”

L 410 Please correct reference: McClinchey, H., Thomason, J., and Runciman, R. Grip and slippage of the horse's hoof on solid substrates measured ex Vivo. Biosystems Engineering, 2004, 89(4), S. 485-494. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2004.08.004

Reviewer #3: PLOS ONE TB SURFACE

17 I’d try to combine the first two sentences as the first one is so general so it doesn’t add to the abstract. Consider

Horseshoes used during racing are a major determinant of safety as they play a critical role in providing traction with the ground surface.

I’d also follow up with a sentence explaining if longer or shorter slip durations were considered optimal or highlight that both too much or too little can cause injury.

31 tracks

34 I’d avoid sensitivity as this is linked to epi and statistics. Is there a better term?

Also, This last sentence is not in past tense and its not clear what the meaning is, please rephrase. How would these findings affect farrier decisions perhaps?

38-40 where are the forelegs? Break downs are commonly foreleg issues

42 please include if a longer or shorter duration of slip is more likely to contribute to injury. or highlight that both too much or too little can cause injury. Maybe move eg of too much and too little refs up closer to the top.

89 so were trials with the same horse but a different jockey counted as different experiences? How did you account for this statistically as I don’t know this would could or should count as different?

45-46 this seems like half of a sentence? Missing a reduced bending moments when?

47 who has shown hoof slip to affect jarring? How would it do that?

48-49 needs to be higher up. Do the refs 1 and 2 support this? Has slip been shown to decrease the rate of energy dissipation?

59 the limited to 3/8 height refers to the shoe or the studs please clarify

69 what is solear? Please clarify?

Intro- generally there wasn’t explicit discussion on the effect of speed and slip which the abstract made it sound as if this was looked at, possibly more should be added here on that. I also think there should be mention of common race horse injuries (break down and otherwise, ideally with commentary on surface type and limb affected) to see where shoeing impacts would be most important.

88i don’t think you need the e.g. and can just leave the ref same for line 101

89 if the pairs were fixed I’m unclear about 14 horse jockey pairings? Does that include shoes? May need a supplemental diagram

103 I know this was previously published, but there should be a brief comment about where on the track the filming occurred aka on a straight segment and how far after the gate. Also a comment on calibration when it seems horses had varied distances from the camera.

125which marker (of the 3seen) on the hoof wand was used? Can you grab an image from the markers at first contact and make it a 4 panel?

Table 1, I am unclear about why the jockey horse pairs differed so much some were 7 and others 12 please explain more in above methods +/-supplemental figure.

I don’t think you need the shoe-surface combo column since you outlined that in the first two columns, this would allow it to be a bit bigger

Table 2 what is the N:? it looks as if speed is significant for the leading forelimb (how is it sig? directionality), with shoe only significant in the leading hindlimb (what shoe type particularly)?? The abstract doesn’t read as such.

Table 3 this needs more clarity in the table legend, is this on slip? This applies to the following tables as well.

Fig 2, discussion should include which of these areas we are trying to optimize slip type in, aka is it more important to have less slip in the leading hind leg because of commonly reported injuries? Or in one of the forelegs? Aka what is the most clinically relevant limb to prioritize an optimal slip type? Or do we just not know?

Add in N

Fig 3, are the outliers all the same horse? Is this across all surfaces? Is it still significant if you just look at the surface individually?

185, but surface was significant, with slip being longer/shorter under what conditions?

Gen comment, I don’t think you have to have the p value to 3 digits beyond the decimal but please adhere to journal rules.

Sentences 190-192 are what I am looking for up in 185

194 if you leave the Pearson correlation in please add to methods. Why does this R2 differ from the one in Fig 4? Is that just for the leading hind limb? If you report this one you should do for the other limbs as well please

Fig 4 here you have P <0.001 but I think this is referring to the line 204 which has p=0.001

It looks like lower speed has more slip- hoping this is discussed.

DISCUSSION

230-231 I’d like this idea to be brought into the conclusions of the abstract vs what is there. I’d still like more discussion of commonly reported injury areas in relation to racing and track types. Aka how often is the leading hind limb injured vs forelimbs etc. are there more hind end soft tissue injuries which would make sense with the greater slip and would agree with prev lit. you touch on it in 264 but for clinical relevance the more commonly injured legs would seem to be the ones you’d pay most attention to in regards to optimizing slip.

275-277 with a longer slip duration for the aluminum shoe vs barefoot this would seem to be the same thing that the jocks were saying where they felt the slip was increased for the aluminum shoe. If you meant these to be in agreement I’d remove the actually as it makes it sound as if the two statements wouldn’t agree. I don’t see the discrepancy? Or is it that it only occurred in one instance vs more? Please clarify.

291-2- were these assessed with the different shoes? Is that a paper to come out soon? Was stride length and frequency calculated in the different shoes?

308-309 also better to be added to the abstract conclusions than what is there. Aka being explicit that slip is hoof specific

Where are your limitations? There was one above re not testing surface moisture and other characteristics but was that really it?

Ref 26 has some odd A figures in it?

I’d love to see the Fig S1actually be in the 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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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-24-21823R1Hoof slip duration at impact in galloping Thoroughbred ex-racehorses trialling eight shoe-surface combinationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horan,

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 Oct 03 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: thanks for the changes.

minor comments

PLOS one_hoof slip_2024_revision1

62 spellout US

65 spell out UK

Fig 3, the star is just over the aluminumshoes in the leading hind, more detail in the figure legend should be given to understand what comparison is significant.

Fig 5 discussion of statistical significance and a correlation vs a true impact should be discussed as the R^2 are exceptionally weak.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Hoof slip duration at impact in galloping Thoroughbred ex-racehorses trialling eight shoe-surface combinations

PONE-D-24-21823R2

Dear Dr. Horan,

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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thanks for your changes. no concerns left

I"m not sure why this won't let me submit without adding more.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********