PONE-D-24-22455A new method based on physical patterns to impute aerobiological datasetsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marcon,

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.

Your manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are appended below and in the attached file. The reviewers have primarily requested clarification of some aspects of your study, however, please address in detail the comment from Reviewer 2 regarding calculation of the start and end dates of the pollen season for each pollen type. Please ensure you address each of the reviewers' comments when revising your manuscript. We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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,

Hugh Cowley

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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 in your Funding Statement: 

This research has received grants from the European Union through the Italian Ministry of University and Research under the ESF REACT-EU Green and Innovation funding programme (Ministerial Decree 1061/2021) and the NextGenerationEu funding programme (Ministerial Decree 737/2021). Article processing charges were supported by the special fund at the University of Verona dedicated to Open Access publications. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: This study (A new method based on physical patterns to impute aerobiological datasets) includes an analysis of the effectiveness of Gappy Singular Value Decomposition (GSVD) in aerobiological datasets. It addresses a clear and evident need in the field of aerobiology: the lack of data on pollen concentration on some days. I would like to congratulate the authors of the paper because it is very well written. Thus, I consider that this paper, after minor corrections, is suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Some minor suggestions are listed below.

L177-179: Use roman numerals i and ii without italics.

L322: While reading this paragraph, as a researcher, I would opt for the "simpler" method. Perhaps add that more studies applying GSVD on different pollen types and environments are needed to reach a more generalized conclusion.

L327: Emphasize the importance of linking pollen data with meteorological data, as has been observed, for example, in this study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145426

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

My review is as follows.

In addition, it is attached as a pdf file for keeping its format.

Reviewer

Tagliaferro, S., Corrochano, A., Marchetti, P., Marcon, A., Le Clainche, S., 2024: A new method based on physical patterns to impute aerobiological datasets. PLOS ONE;

The authors conducted a novel simulation study to evaluate the effectiveness of Gappy Singular Value Decomposition (GSVD), as a data-driven approach, comparing it with the moving mean interpolation, as a statistical approach. However, high variability in pollen concentrations and the increasing number of missing data and the increasing lack of those around the sample mean negatively affected imputation accuracy.

My comments are as follows.

Comments:

• Line 123: You used the 95% method (start: 2.5th percentile; end: 97.5th percentile) when calculating the start and end dates of the pollen season for each pollen type.

However, if pollen concentrations and within-season distribution vary by year, such an approach is likely to contract or expand season duration independently from climate change. For example, if the API was 2000 for a given year, the start of the pollen season would be when the cumulative concentration reached 50; but if the API for the same location was 5000 for the following year, then the pollen season would not start until the cumulative concentration reached 125. Use of this system to mark the start and end of the pollen season would mask any climate-related or temperature-related changes associated with pollen season duration.

Therefore, rather than using start and end percentages, to determine the pollen season, it is widely used the first (last) date on which at least 1 pollen grain m−3 of air is recorded and at least 5 consecutive (preceding) days also show 1 or more pollen grains m−3 (Makra et al., 2012).

Reference

Makra, L., Matyasovszky, I., Bálint, B., 2012: Association of allergic asthma emergency room visits with the main biological and chemical air pollutants. Science of the Total Environment, 432, 288-296. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.05.088

• Line 136: Graminaceae is the former name of the grass family. I recommend using Poaceae everywhere in the manuscript instead.

• Line 247: correctly: “For both pollen types”, instead of “For both pollens”;

• Line 341: correctly: “with”, instead of “whit”;

Reviewer

Reviewer #3: The manuscript entitled ”A new method based on physical patterns to impute aerobiological datasets” by Tagliaferro et al. presents a novel method to handle missing values in the monitorization of bioaerosols, in comparison to the current method of managing missing data, while also analyzing which factors influence the accuracy of these methods. For this, the authors use pollen data from two different pollen species from two different monitoring stations. The topic of the paper is highly relevant in the context of worldwide increasing allergy prevalence and the influence of climate change on the distribution of respiratory allergens. The paper is overall well written explaining the methods employed for the data comparison.

There are a few minor comments regarding the manuscript

1. Could the authors add some information regarding what pollen genera are comprised within the examined Graminaceae pollen and discuss how this could influence the accuracy of the presented methods since they mention a lower variability in this pollen type and a longer pollen season?

2. Line 120: The authors mention analyzing Alnus and Poaceae pollen, whereas throughout the manuscript they use Graminaceae pollen

3. Line 341 – typo probably ”with” rather than ”whit”

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Tagliaferro_rev_PONE-D-24-22455_reviewer.pdf

A new method based on physical patterns to impute aerobiological datasets

PONE-D-24-22455R1

Dear Dr. Marcon,

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,

Rajeev Singh

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

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: The content relating to the previous review has been updated and therefore this paper is suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I accept your answer to my comments and suggest to publish the revised version of your manuscript as it is.

Reviewer

Reviewer #3: Considering the authors' adequate and complete responses to all my comments, I recommend the article to be accepted for publication.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********