Building non-motorized accessible communities for heterogeneous demand: A facility location and network design problem

Stefano Starita; Pinnaree Tea-Makorn; Pavitra Jindahra

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312230

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 9, 2024
6 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Abel C. H. Chen, Editor PONE-D-24-23480Building Non-Motorized Accessible Communities for Heterogeneous Demand: A Facility Location and Network Design ProblemPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Starita, 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 20 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, Abel C. H. Chen 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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research is supported by Rathchadapiseksompotch Fund Chulalongkorn University." 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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No 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: The paper entitled Building Non-Motorized Accessible Communities for Heterogeneous Demand: A Facility Location and Network Design Problem is really interesting. The needs to not only improving public transportation but also non-motorized infrastructure is indeed needed to some extends. There is concern regarding the English quality on this manuscript as some parts are redundant, especially the background part. Furthermore, there are some parts that should be improved as i found some dangling modifier that reduce the overall paper clarity. Please check again and use English proofreading service to improve the quality and emphasizes the study aims and contributions. I also notice that the tables & figures presented are somewhat unclear. Rather than using the notation l, n, in the figures or tables, I suggest the authors to use the actual variables. This will ensure better readability. Please also make one more subsection focusing on managerial implication of the findings. Reviewer #2: Please see the ATTACHED review report. The paper is well-structured and addresses a significant and timely issue in urban planning. The combination of facility location theory and network design to enhance non-motorized accessibility is innovative and has the potential to contribute significantly to the field. However, the manuscript could benefit from a clearer exposition in some sections, more rigorous validation of the results, and deeper integration of the literature to position its contributions more distinctly within the current research landscape. ****** 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 ******** [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: Review Report_PONE-D-24-23480_v1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312230.r001
Revision 1
18 Sep 2024 Author Response Referee Report Regarding the Manuscript: PONE-D-24-23480 Building Non-Motorized Accessible Communities for Heterogeneous Demand: A Facility Location and Network Design Problem Submitted to: PLOS ONE We sincerely thank the referees and editors for their valuable and constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your comments in revising the manuscript and believe that the revised draft has significantly improved as a result. Please find below our detailed responses (in red) to each of your comments. A. Brief Summary This manuscript presents an optimization model to enhance non-motorized accessibility in urban environments by identifying optimal locations for service facilities and accessible road segments. The study uses a randomized greedy algorithm to address a complex network design and facility location problem, demonstrating its application through a case study in the Huai Kwang district of Bangkok. This research is timely due to increasing urban mobility issues and aims to cater to diverse user needs, enhancing access to essential services like healthcare and education. B. Overall Impression The paper is well-structured and addresses a significant and timely issue in urban planning. The combination of facility location theory and network design to enhance non-motorized accessibility is innovative and has the potential to contribute significantly to the field. However, the manuscript could benefit from a clearer exposition in some sections, more rigorous validation of the results, and deeper integration of the literature to position its contributions more distinctly within the current research landscape. C. Major Comments 1. Scientific Merits and Consistency of Arguments o The manuscript effectively frames the problem within the context of social justice and environmental sustainability. However, the linkage between the proposed model and existing theories could be strengthened. For instance, the discussion on non-motorized accessibility measures could be better integrated with the model’s objectives to highlight its innovation (e.g., how the proposed measures improve upon or differ from those like distance-based or gravity-based measures). We have revised the introduction section and background to better integrate our proposed model with existing theories on accessibility measures. The revised section clarifies the distinction between traditional distance-based and gravity-based measures and our optimization model, which is designed for centralized planning contexts. We highlight the limitations of gravity-based models in such settings due to their computational challenges and decentralized assumptions, emphasizing instead the practicality and policy alignment of distance-based approaches. Our model innovates by incorporating granular demand data to account for heterogeneous user groups, unlike many existing studies that focus on homogeneous demand or single-service types. This approach is particularly suited for urban planning scenarios that prioritize equity and accessibility, as seen in concepts like the "15-minute city." o The methodological explanation in Sections 2 and 3 is complex and could benefit from additional diagrams or flowcharts to aid in understanding the model’s workflow and algorithmic steps. We have replaced the pseudocode of the main algorithm with a higher level flow chart and improved the explanation of the procedures. We have retained the pseudocode of Rank_Facilities() and Rank_Edges() as we believe they are short and simple enough to be digested by a non-technical audience. o In regards to the optimization model, the assumptions and limitations should be explicitly stated. For instance, how does the model handle uncertainties in demand and travel time? What are the implications of these assumptions on the model’s applicability in real-world scenarios? We have added a paragraph on the limitations of our study in the conclusions, discussing key assumptions and limitations of the model, such as the absence of capacity constraints at facilities, the challenges associated with very large networks, and the demanding data collection process. We have also enhanced the discussion of our assumptions while introducing the model and provided a rationale for not considering uncertainty in travel times, stating: “We do not assume uncertainty in travel time because our approach incorporates varying travel times through distinct demand groups, each reflecting different user behaviors and speeds.” Additionally, we have expanded our discussion on future directions, highlighting that uncertainty in demand, particularly with long-term demographic changes, could significantly impact the problem and offers an interesting direction for further research. o The choice of a randomized greedy algorithm needs more justification. Why was this specific algorithm chosen over others? Comparative analysis with other potential algorithms would strengthen the argument for its use We have clarified the rationale for choosing a randomized greedy algorithm in the revised Solution Methodology section. The decision was guided by empirical observations that optimal solutions are often close to those derived from greedy algorithms, making a greedy-inspired heuristic an effective starting point. Additionally, the algorithm's simplicity ensures it is easier to communicate to stakeholders and implement in practice. While we agree that a comparative analysis with other potential algorithms could provide additional insights, we believe that such an analysis would make the paper overly long and too technical for the intended audience of this journal. However, this could be a valuable direction for future research. 2. Contributions to the Field o The paper's contributions to urban planning and accessibility could be articulated more compellingly by comparing the results with other contemporary approaches. This could include a discussion on the scalability of the approach to other countries, which is currently understated. Please highlight the novel aspects of your work more clearly in relation to existing studies. We have revised the manuscript to better highlight the novel aspects of our work and address the scalability of our approach. Novelty of the Model: Our model presents a novel Facility Location and Network Design (FLND) formulation that incorporates different travel groups and speeds, which has not been explored in the accessibility literature. This approach addresses gaps identified in existing studies, offering a more inclusive and realistic tool for urban planning. We have emphasized this contribution more clearly in the revised manuscript, particularly in the literature review section. Scalability: Our approach is adaptable to various contexts as it does not depend on any specific country or policy framework. The methodology and data collection processes can be replicated in different regions, making the model applicable globally to address different urban accessibility challenges. 3. Quality and Consistency of Writing, Article Flow, and Presentation of Results o Some sections, especially the methodology and results sections, suffer from dense presentation. Simplifying these descriptions or using supplementary material to shift detailed algorithmic discussions could enhance readability. As mentioned in our previous response regarding the complexity in Sections 2 and 3, we have replaced the pseudocode of the main algorithm with a higher-level flow chart. Additionally, we have enhanced the discussion of the algorithm to ensure it is more accessible and understandable to a non-technical audience. o The presentation of results (Section 4) could be enhanced by more visual representations of the changes in accessibility patterns before and after the implementation of the model. We have enhanced the presentation of the results in the case study Section by adding a visual representation that illustrates the changes in accessibility patterns before and after implementing the model. Specifically, we included a figure that compares the distribution of covered points by service type with no changes to the network and facilities versus the scenario with the largest budget in our analysis. The figure visually demonstrates the improvements in demand coverage for different service types and demand groups, reinforcing the effectiveness of the proposed model in enhancing accessibility. 4. Quality and Consistency of Discussions and Conclusions o The contributions could be expanded to suggest specific urban planning policies or further research areas directly stemming from the study's findings. We have expanded the conclusion to suggest specific urban planning policies that stem directly from the study's findings. We now discuss how the model results can help urban planners identify key areas where zoning changes could promote the inclusion of essential services in underserved areas. This approach would ensure that critical services are more accessible to all population groups. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of enhancing accessibility for vulnerable or mobility-impaired groups by prioritizing investments in accessible infrastructure. o It would be beneficial if the authors discuss the limitations of their approach, particularly concerning the generalizability of the randomized greedy algorithm across different urban settings. This could offer a more balanced view and suggest areas for further methodological enhancement. As mentioned in our previous response, we have added a paragraph in the Conclusions and Future Developments Section, to detail what we believe are the main limitations of our study. We particularly highlight the absence of capacity constraints at facilities, the challenges associated with very large networks, and the demanding data collection process. o The discussion should more explicitly connect the findings back to the research questions and objectives. Address any unexpected results and discuss their implications. The discussion in the Conclusion section is expanded to more clearly connect the findings to the study's objectives and discuss their implications. Since this work is prescriptive in nature, it is not driven by specific research questions or hypotheses but rather focuses on providing a decision support tool for urban planners to optimize non-motorized accessibility. To better align the findings with the study's objectives, we have highlighted how the model results help identify key areas where new facilities and accessible roads would most improve accessibility for various demand groups. This directly supports the objective of guiding zoning changes and infrastructure investments that promote inclusive urban development. The revised discussion also emphasizes that the variations observed in solutions for different demand groups suggest targeted policies, such as prioritizing accessible infrastructure development for vulnerable or mobility-impaired populations. These insights underline the practical utility of the model for planners seeking to enhance urban accessibility in a data-driven manner. D. Minor Comments o There are minor typographical and grammatical errors scattered throughout the text that need correction to maintain the professionalism of the manuscript. o Correct minor typographical errors, such as: • Page 3: "acounting" should be "accounting" • Page 3: "enahncing" should be "enhancing" • Page 2: "encopasses" should be "encompasses" • Page 3: "heteregenous" should be "heterogeneous" • Page 17: "deeemed" should be "deemed" Thank you for helping us spotting typos. We have fixed the highlighted errors and a few more we have discovered during the revision process. Reviewer 2 The paper entitled Building Non-Motorized Accessible Communities for Heterogeneous Demand: A Facility Location and Network Design Problem is really interesting. The needs to not only improving public transportation but also non-motorized infrastructure is indeed needed to some extends. There is concern regarding the English quality on this manuscript as some parts are redundant, especially the background part. Furthermore, there are some parts that should be improved as i found some dangling modifier that reduce the overall paper clarity. Please check again and use English proofreading service to improve the quality and emphasizes the study aims and contributions. I also notice that the tables & figures presented are somewhat unclear. Rather than using the notation l, n, in the figures or tables, I suggest the authors to use the actual variables. This will ensure better readability. Please also make one more subsection focusing on managerial implication of the findings. Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has gone through a comprehensive review and proofreading. We made a number of changes in many sections, some of which aimed at addressing policy and managerial implications of our modeling choices and computational results. We have elaborated in Sections 1 and 2 on how the choice of a coverage-based objective aligns with practical urban planning policies, such as the 15-minute city concept. This approach allows policymakers to directly apply the model's results to enhance non-motorized accessibility. Furthermore, in Section 3, the decision to use a randomized greedy algorithm is also linked to possible managerial implications; its simplicity and effectiveness make it easier for urban planners to understand, implement, and communicate results to stakeholders. In Sections 4 and 5, we have expanded the discussion on the policy implications of our model, particularly highlighting how the results can guide urban planners in making zoning changes that promote equitable distribution of essential services. This is directly linked to practical managerial decisions on where to invest in new facilities and accessible infrastructure to maximize accessibility for different demand groups, including vulnerable and mobility-impaired populations. We used the notation n and l for the figures and tables as the results summarized in both are obtained by creating different budget scenarios changing the values of n and l, in line with the model notation. In the context of these visualizations we don’t believe placing the variable notation (x, y, z) would help digesting the charts and figures. We appreciate and understand the referee’s concern regarding figures and tables readability, so while we believe that the use of l and n, correctly matches the model’s formulation, we are also open to other suggestions or ideas to improve the figures. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312230.r002
4 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Abel C. H. Chen, Editor Building Non-Motorized Accessible Communities for Heterogeneous Demand: A Facility Location and Network Design Problem PONE-D-24-23480R1 Dear Dr. Starita, 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, Abel C. H. Chen 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my concerns and improve the quality of the manuscript. The current version is acceptable for publication. Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the authors' responses, and I am satisfied that they have addressed my comments and concerns. However, I recommend that the authors take a more structured approach in their future revisions. It would be helpful if they could clearly indicate the specific location of the changes by providing the section, page numbers, and a clear explanation of how the comments were addressed. This would make it easier for reviewers to locate the changes without having to search through the files. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312230.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Abel C. H. Chen, Editor PONE-D-24-23480R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Starita, 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. Abel C. H. Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312230.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 .