Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 10, 2024 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Bortz, 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 Feb 05 2025 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.
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, Mu-Hong Chen, M.D., Ph.D. 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 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Fapesp Public Policies Research Program (Proc. n. 2019/02133-4). Fundunesp (Proc. n. 3334/2022 – PIF).” 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 referenced (unpublished) on page 6, which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 5. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it 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. Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed. [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? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: No ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: Important note: This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ [like medical importance, relevance of the study, ‘clinical significance and implication(s)’ of the whole study, etc.] are to be evaluated [should be assessed] separately/independently. Further please note that any ‘statistical review’ is generally done under the assumption that study specific methodological [as well as execution] issues are perfectly taken care of by the investigator(s). This review is not an exception to that and so does not cover clinical aspects {however, seldom comments are made only if those issues are intimately / scientifically related & intermingle with ‘statistical aspects’ of the study}. Agreed that ‘statistical methods’ are used as just tools here, however, they are vital part of methodology [and so should be given due importance]. I look at the manuscript in/with statistical view point, other reviewer(s) look(s) at it with different angle so that in totality the review is very comprehensive. However, there should be efforts from authors side to improve (may be by taking clues from reviewer’s comments). Therefore, please do not limit the revision only (with respect) to comments made here. COMMENTS: I have different opinion/views/observations/concerns or rather questions regarding quite a few issues [including some very serious ones] which are given below: I noted that your ABSTRACT is drafted alright (in my opinion), but is ‘assay type’. It is preferable [refer to item 1b of CONSORT checklist 2010: Structured summary of trial design, methods, results, and conclusions] to divide the ABSTRACT with small sections like ‘Objective(s)’, ‘Methods’, ‘Results’, ‘Conclusions’, etc. which is an accepted practice of most of the good/standard journals [including this one, though ‘The PLoS One Guidelines to Authors’ did not specify an Abstract format, it is desirable]. It will definitely be more informative then, I guess, whatever the article type may be {though Section headings may differ for different Article Types [example: Study Protocol]}. Moreover, your abstract is very short (only 188 words). Note that the effect size {eta-squared from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test} [A significant effect of the intervention in emotional symptoms in the music group as opposed to controls was found (F(1,89) = 4.562, p = 0.035, �2 = 0.049), indicating benefits for the music group] is very-very small. Reference quoted in line 326 {13. Miller E, Cohen J. An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function. Annual review of neuroscience. 2001; 24: 167-202 is different } is diffent than one given below. How that indicates “benefits for the music group” is a serious question. The manuscript is on very valid & very interesting topic. However, in such studies/trials the effect size generally observed/expected to be small and so needs ‘large sample’ sizes (for both groups). Please refer to table-1 on page 157 of Jacob Cohen’s paper “A power primer” in Psychological Bulletin, 1992, vol.:112, pp 155-159 [which is a sort of summary of the excellent book by Cohen himself titled ‘Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences’, Academic Press, 1977, New York] for magnitude of various effect size indexes. How the ‘effect of the intervention in emotional symptoms’ measured (as one entity) is not described (most questionable)? Inference “Children whose mothers had low levels of education benefited with gains between 0.70 and 0.95 standard deviations in both groups for divided attention, indicating a significant interaction with maternal education” is wonderful [least understood, more explanation required]. From where or how it is drawn is not understood (highly questionable)? This way of interpreting/expressing result(s) appears to be new to me. Kindly let me learn more/novel things {by giving details}. Most objectional/questionable issue is regarding ‘sample size’. Footnote-4 of line 169 (we intended to test children aged between 6 and 7, but as it was difficult to achieve the minimum sample size desired in this group, the range was extended) shows that the formal ‘desired/required sample size’ estimation was done sometime. But surprisingly it is not discussed at all (anywhere) in the manuscript. You have not given/discussed ‘How the required minimum sample size for this study was determined’ which nevertheless is a very-very important question [one of the important items in CONSORT checklist, item 7a] for any type of study (clinical trial or else). This point needs to be discussed in adequate details {including assumptions made at the time of estimation, power (confidence/accuracy/precision in case of single-arm/group studies) of the study, software used, etc.}. One concludes that the sample size used in this study is haphazardly determined. {even for required sample size use the above reference [“A power primer” in Psychological Bulletin, 1992, vol.:112, pp 155-159]} As you may (rather definitely) know that “all ‘Clinical Trials’ must follow CONSORT guidelines”. Since your article type is ‘Clinical Trial’, you are supposed to cover these items in the report. In addition, you may please refer to “ICH HARMONISED TRIPARTITE GUIDELINE STATISTICAL PRINCIPLES FOR CLINICAL TRIALS - E9” latest version of which is available on NET/WWW. Although you mentioned in the title itself [and also clarified later in lines 163-66: Due to ethical reasons related to the policies of enrollment in the Guri Program, it was not possible to randomize child participants into music and control groups. Therefore, we performed an intervention study based on a quasi-experimental design] that it ‘A quasi-experimental study’, the journal rightly classified this study as a clinical trial. Choice/selection of the ‘control’ group is doubtful regarding its correctness. Please note that non-random allocation does not make it a different (like observational) study and so you are supposed to follow “CONSORT guidelines”. Though the measures/tools used are appropriate often times, most of them [example: statement in lines 187-88 After signing consent forms, parents were invited to complete the SDQ–parent version and the ABEP questionnaire] are likely to yield data that are in ‘ordinal’ level of measurement [and not in ratio level of measurement for sure {as the score two times higher does not indicate presence of that parameter/phenomenon as double (for example, a Visual Analogue Scales VAS score or say ‘depression’ score)}]. In such situation one has to inflate sample size by 10 to 20% and also then the application of suitable non-parametric (or distribution free) test(s) is/are indicated/advisable [even if distribution may be ‘Gaussian’ (also called ‘normal’)]. Agreed that there is/are no non-parametric test(s)/technique(s) available to be used as alternative in all situation(s), but should be used whenever/wherever they are available. Therefore, in short use suitable non-parametric test(s)/technique(s) while dealing with data that are in ‘ordinal’ level of measurement even if [despite that] the distribution may be ‘Gaussian’. Testing ‘normality’ in sample [by using any normality test(s)} is not required/desired while dealing with data that are in ‘ordinal’ level of measurement [as most of the normality tests are not valid for ‘ordinal’ data]. In the ABSTRACT [The music group (n = 38, 5-9 years) was recruited from 10 centers (polos) distributed across the metropolitan area of São Paulo and the control group (n = 67) consisted of aged-matched children who attended public schools surrounding the polos.] as well as in lines 181-2 it is stated that “The control group consisted of aged-matched children who attended regular schools surrounding the Guri polos” but sample sizes of these two groups are different, therefore I am curious to know the method used here for matching. Please note that similar age group coverage does not mean ‘aged-matched’. What exactly you want to convey by saying in lines 315-6 “We paired the groups using pre-test data (before running the analyses, using data from all children who were paired).”. In my knowledge, the term is ‘age-matched’ and not ‘aged-matched’. Kindly check for the ‘English’ language. Agreed that English is not our mother tongue (definitely not mine, may or may not be yours but certainly not of many readers), however in any case, remember/ Kindly mind you [please excuse me for such a harsh comment/statement] that this is a scientific/academic document and so all details should be clearly/correctly communicated (do not take reader’s for granted). You may take help of language professional expert, if needed. Way used for matching (lines 288-290: “we managed the sample characteristics to match study groups. Sample matching was carried out based on the removal of children from both groups”) is also highly objectionable. Difference (large) in sample sizes of two groups [experimental/intervention group & control group] is also questionable. Method of imputation used [an expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm which is an iterative method to find (local) maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of parameters in statistical models, where the model depends on unobserved latent variables] is also questionable. Application of expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm as a method of imputation is not found on NET/WWW search {above quote about this method is after/by NET/WWW search only}. When only two independent groups are to be compared {ex. Women and Men}, we use ‘t’ test for two independent groups [non-parametric equivalent to unpaired ‘t’ test is Mann-Whitney ‘U’ test] and not ANOVA ‘F’. Although ‘F’ and ‘t’ are mathematically related/equivalent [square of ‘t’ is exactly equal to ‘F’ if (mistakenly) calculated for two groups], logic/philosophy (and so underlying assumptions) behind their development and algorithms used for estimation of test statistic are different. They are applicable in different situations. I do not see any ‘repeated measures’ (lines 320-321: Inferential analyses are reported by ANOVAS with repeated measures). ‘Pre-Post’ differences could be delt by Mann-Whitney test on ‘change scores’ or by applying ANCOVAs. In fact, whole ‘Statistical analysis’ (including section described in lines 310 onwards) is of questionable value. Limitation of this study highlighted in lines 484-5 “As limitations of this study, the absence of statistically significant interaction between the groups in some cases may be due to the low sample size and short intervention time” is appreciated but note that there are quite a few other limitations as well [important ones are ‘design’ of the study and way of analyses]. As pointed out in ‘important note’ above “This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ should be assessed separately/independently [one should carefully consider/look at the clinical implications of the study]. In my opinion, to rescue this article (which little difficult, but not impossible), large amount of re-vision (re-drafting) may be needed. However, please do not limit the revision only (with respect) to comments made here. More improvement is expected. Nevertheless, ‘how to handle/accommodate these suggestions?’ is questionable as the study is already conducted/complete. ‘Major revision’ is recommended [as the study is on very interesting topic and therefore, would like to give chance to authors for improvement of the manuscript]. Reviewer #2: In Table 3, the main effect of time on emotional symptoms is not statistically significant. Although a significant group × time interaction is observed, this finding alone does not conclusively demonstrate that the music intervention effectively reduces emotional symptoms in the intervention group—an issue of paramount clinical importance. Therefore, additional statistical analyses are recommended to more definitively assess the intervention’s impact within each group. ********** 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Graziela Bortz, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 2025 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.
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, Mu-Hong Chen, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 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??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: No ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: COMMENTS: I note that most of the comments made on earlier draft are attended to the possible extend. However, the original over-all quality of the manuscript generally remains the same [as the study is already completed & I am not fully satisfied]. Now I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication [only because the study (is on important topic and) has potential]. However, note the following: Although all modifications are highlighted in red in the manuscript, reporting the changes directly in the text, makes the review process difficult and time consuming. Responding to comments point by point could have been very useful and so appreciated. Reviewer #2: I appreciate the authors’ thoughtful and extensive revisions to the manuscript. However, the revised statistical approach still does not appropriately test the study’s central hypothesis. The current modeling strategy uses follow-up scores as the dependent variable while adjusting for baseline and maternal education. This design may control for baseline differences but does not directly test whether the groups change differently over time. Without modeling the group × time interaction or using a repeated-measures framework, the analyses do not support valid inferences about the effectiveness of the music education intervention. I strongly encourage the authors to reanalyze the data using a repeated-measures GLM that includes time, group, and their interaction. This is standard practice for evaluating intervention effects in longitudinal designs. ********** 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: Dr. Sanjeev Sarmukaddam 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
The impact of music education on children's cognitive and socioemotional development: A quasi-experimental study in the Guri Program in Brazil PONE-D-24-48345R2 Dear Dr. Graziela Bortz, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Mu-Hong Chen, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my previous concerns, particularly by implementing a repeated-measures framework (GEE) that includes group × time interactions. While the study is limited by a small sample size and a relatively short intervention period, the methods are sound, the analysis is now appropriate. Given PLOS ONE’s criteria of methodological rigor and clarity, I support the acceptance of this manuscript in its current form. ********** 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 ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-24-48345R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bortz, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Mu-Hong Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .