Lasting lockdown love? Problem behaviour and pandemic and non-pandemic related risk factors influencing the owner-dog relationship in a UK cohort of dogs reaching early adulthood

Bree L. Merritt; Dan G. O’Neill; Claire L. Brand; Zoe Belshaw; Fiona C. Dale; Camilla L. Pegram; Rowena M. A. Packer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316166

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 18, 2024
4 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - I Anna S Olsson, Editor PONE-D-24-29934Behaviour and other factors influencing the owner-dog bond as dogs reach early adulthood in the UKPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Merritt, 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. You will find a detailed list of reviewer feedback below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 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, I Anna S Olsson, 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: Dear authors, Thank you for this great article which addresses a highly relevant issue - the welfare of our pet-dogs. Ad 1.: The manuscript is technically sound, with a well-structured methodology that supports the conclusions drawn. The use of the MDORS to measure perceived emotional closeness, interaction and perceived cost appears appropriate and provides reliable results when combined with potential risk factors of the owner-dog bond. Ad 2.: Statistical analysis is carried out rigorously. The manuscript clearly describes the statistical methods used and the results are presented with appropriate measures of statistical significance and confidence intervals. The choice of statistical methods is well suited to the research questions and the data collected. Ad 3.: The authors have made all underlying data fully available, as indicated in the data availability statement. Ad 4.: The manuscript is presented in an understandable manner and is written in standard English. The text is clear, concise and free of major grammatical errors, which facilitates the reader's understanding. The structure of the manuscript follows a logical progression from introduction to methodology, results and discussion, which enhances its readability. Overall, the manuscript is robust, methodologically sound, and well-presented. It provides valuable insights into the factors influencing the owner-dog bond during early adulthood of dogs, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings have significant implications for dog welfare and owner support interventions. One aspect to consider in the limitations section is owner-reported data. Reliance on owner-reported data could introduce bias, as owners may have different perceptions and reporting accuracy. Acknowledging this limitation and discussing potential methods to mitigate it (e.g. using objective measures of dog behaviour) would strengthen the manuscript. Another aspect that could enhance the depth and applicability of the research would be to provide more context on how the findings relate to the existing literature. Whilst the discussion refers to some previous studies, a deeper integration and comparison with a wider range of research would help to situate the study within the wider field. Reviewer #2: Review „Behaviour and other factors influencing the owner-dog bond as dogs reach early adulthood in the UK” PONE-D-24-29934 Dear authors, This manuscript addresses a very important and interesting topic by aiming to identify risk factors associated with a weaker owner-dog bond in UK dogs acquired in 2020. The data provided is highly relevant to various areas of research in the human-animal bond and veterinary sciences. The methodology and analyses are sound, carefully conducted and clearly described. However, I think that some aspects in the introduction and discussion could be better elaborated to improve the manuscript. I would also make a few changes to the helpful illustrations. . Title: After reading the manuscript, I felt that the title was too vague for the manuscript. It might be worthwhile to include “Pandemic dogs”, “risk factors” instead of other factors that the title fits better to your actual investigations. Introduction: Line 47: Even though the first sentence makes it clear that emotional relationship in this manuscript is described by owner-dog bond, in my opinion the term is not consistently preserved. I would use either bond or relationship uniformly and consistently in the manuscript. Line 58: I think it is important to clarify here that it is a matter of convenience euthanasia and would go into this aspect including moral challenges (also in veterinary practice) in more detail. Line 63-69: As these are important factors for the analysis, these factors should not only be listed, but it would be helpful for the reader if the content would be unpacked. E.g. what is meant by lack of problem behaviour. Line 72- 76: Same applies here. I think this information needs to be unpacked: What negative long-term effects on behaviour and health? I would provide precise examples and descriptions. Further, explain what is meant by “poor-welfare” source? Line 84: “impact on dog welfare” This is an often-used term and should be clarified at the very beginning what is meant by this and in what way the dog welfare is impacted. Should be unpacked here and will be of help for the whole manuscript and your arguments. Methods: Risk factor variables and Table 1: This table is a bit hard to follow and it might be a good idea to introduce some of them in a more detailed way in the introduction including your assumption in which direction the factors may impact owner-dog bond. Line 179-183: Here, or in the introduction I would expect a short explanation of differences training methods. This would be further helpful for the discussion. Results: Line: 291: “%” is missing Figure 2: In general, I really like this figure and it provides a good overview of your results. For publication, a better resolution of the figure is needed. The resolution is currently very poor and hard to read. Few suggestions: Line 336-343: As this is a really long heading for a table, you can think about to replaces info (Line 336-343) in footnotes “No change in care provision” and “Change in care provision” reads a bit irritating and it is not very clear what is meant by this while exploring your figure. Might be better to choose a more precise description that reflects this aspect. Figure 3: In general, I really like this figure and it provides a good overview of your results. For publication, a better resolution of the figure is needed. The resolution is currently very poor and hard to read. Line 376-382: As this is a really long heading for a table, you can think about to replaces info (Line 336-343) in footnotes “<6m to acquire” � I would include “decision” here Line 399-401: Again, an explanation for reader who are not familiar with certain training techniques, would be of help. Discussion: Line 419: “impact” instead of “harm” Line 421: Again, what is meant by dog welfare? See comment for introduction. Line 428-434: Methods section? Line 434-436: Should go in the limitation section Line 441: I would provide more details for each aspect. Line 445-448: As this is an ongoing debate, I would expect a bit more reflection on euthanasia based on aggressive behavior. Line 471-476: I think a huge problem is that most of the people are not aware about the time, money they have to spend and too little responsibility is taken by the owners. Line 501: Not only ability, but also awareness of their responsibilities. Line 507: Some countries have already introduced a certificate of competence, so that a dog may only be bought after a two-day course. This is also a ‘hurdle’ and can protect against impulse buying. Line 512-517: Further explanation: The desire to get a dog may have existed for a long time and it was during this phase (with the hype) that the purchase was made. I think that should be taken into account. The decision to buy is different from the phase before that: Have you wanted a dog for a long time? Line 523-525: Could also be the feeling that you are doing justice to both: The dog and the work Line 527-536: A bit weak and lacking argumentation for the discussed results. I wish the authors good luck with the publication and look forward to the final publication of the highly relevant data. ****** 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_PONE-D-24-29934.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316166.r001
Revision 1
24 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Dr Olsson, Thank you for your comments and those of the reviewers. The journal formatting and image requirements have been met in the resubmitted files, and the data will be made available on figshare. I look forward to hearing your decision. Best wishes Bree Merritt Specific responses to the reviewers are below, copied from the Reponse to Reviewers document: Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable feedback on our proposed paper. In response, the introduction and discussion sections have been edited to expand the background for this work and link it to existing publications. Consideration of your points raised has made this a stronger and more readable paper. Please see below for individual responses to reviews. Reviewer 1 Comment: One aspect to consider in the limitations section is owner-reported data. Reliance on owner-reported data could introduce bias, as owners may have different perceptions and reporting accuracy. Acknowledging this limitation and discussing potential methods to mitigate it (e.g. using objective measures of dog behaviour) would strengthen the manuscript. Response: For measures of owner-dog relationships (our key outcome measures), as we are capturing these measures from the owners’ perspective, it is vital these reports are direct from the owner. We agree that behavioural observations can be more reliable than owner reports in many circumstances; however, here we aimed to collect a large dataset to facilitate powerful epidemiological risk factor analyses, and thus such practical measures of dog behaviour across a range of contexts would not be feasible in this study design. Similar large scale cohort studies in the UK (e.g. Generation Pup) also rely on owner reports in their peer-reviewed publications. We have added the following sentence to address this concern lines 609 – 614): Data were owner-reported; while this was essential for data regarding owners’ relationships with their dogs, measures of dog behaviour and owner actions may be less reliable due to the known unreliability of owner interpretation and reporting of dog behaviour (69). However, this epidemiological approach facilitated collection of a large-scale dataset that practical measures would preclude. Comment: Another aspect that could enhance the depth and applicability of the research would be to provide more context on how the findings relate to the existing literature. Whilst the discussion refers to some previous studies, a deeper integration and comparison with a wider range of research would help to situate the study within the wider field. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added some additional context to the discussion • Subsection “Behaviour and Perceived Costs”: o After the first sentence, we added a sentence describing how commonplace problem behaviour is in this cohort (from sister publication (Brand et al. 2024)) and to demonstrate the scale of this issue internationally and its potential widespread impact on dog owner relationships (lines 470-472). Problem behaviour has previously been reported as a risk factor for a reduced owner-dog relationship (18,43), relinquishment (52) and euthanasia (53). o More context has been added as to how the results of this current study compare and contrast to previous investigations of behavior and the owner-dog relationship, particularly the type of problems behaviour and the relationship outcomes that were measured (lines 497-511): A Danish study measuring MDORS (19), also found owner perceived problems with fear were associated with increased Perceived Costs but not Closeness. Aggression or being home alone were not shown to be associated with either outcome, perhaps reflecting the different cultural expectations and management of dogs. Other studies of showing the relationship between problem behaviour and the owner-dog relationship have examined the interaction between the owner and the dog (18), or attachment (10,43), and thus have not been able to identify the contrasting effect of behaviour on different aspects of the relationship. The low frequency of relinquishment in this study could be further explained by problem behaviour not being associated with decreased Closeness (and thus the close emotional relationship with the dogs buffers the ‘burden’ of owning them resulting in less relinquishment (10)). However, it has been shown that relinquishing owners do not necessarily have lower emotional attachment to their dogs (39) so more information on the changes to the owner-dog relationship over time in relation to risk factors and relinquishment is warranted. • Subsection “Training”: Added a comment on the place of these results supporting reward-based training and their importance given the prevalence of use of aversive methods (lines 537-540): The observation of a weaker owner-dog relationship with increasing use of aversive techniques in this current study supports current evidence promoting reward-based training (21,22,60). This is an important result given the high prevalence of the use of aversive dog training techniques among owners in this (31) and other study populations (21,60,61). • Subsection COVID-19: added speculation on the challenges of educating owners as to the responsibilities of dog ownership, and how this has been investigated or legislated for elsewhere (lines 558-570): Studies report that owners’ awareness of the legal responsibilities that come with dog ownership are poor, including those related to safeguarding health and welfare. For example, Irish dog owners were no more knowledgeable than non-dog owners regarding the responsibilities of dog owners prescribed by law in Ireland (64). Consequently, greater understanding is needed of why owners continue to impulsively acquire dogs in the face of such widespread messaging, when the owners’ future circumstances are liable to lead to challenges providing care; and ultimately even relinquishment. Restrictions to current acquisition practices (e.g., compulsory courses that new owners must attend, as already implemented in countries such as Spain since 2023 (65) and in the Canton of Zurich since 2022 (66)) could be an effective deterrent for impulsive acquisition. However, the efficacy of these rules and whether there would be political will and resources to implement them in the UK is currently unknown. Reviewer 2 Title: After reading the manuscript, I felt that the title was too vague for the manuscript. It might be worthwhile to include “Pandemic dogs”, “risk factors” instead of other factors that the title fits better to your actual investigations. Thank you. The title has been edited to reflect that the investigations identified risk factors, and that the dogs were pandemic puppies. New long title: Lasting Lockdown Love? Problem behaviour and pandemic and non-pandemic related risk factors influencing the owner-dog relationship in a UK cohort of dogs reaching early adulthood Introduction: Line 47: Even though the first sentence makes it clear that emotional relationship in this manuscript is described by owner-dog bond, in my opinion the term is not consistently preserved. I would use either bond or relationship uniformly and consistently in the manuscript. We agree that consistency is important, and therefore we have edited the manuscript to consistently use the word relationship throughout. Line 58: I think it is important to clarify here that it is a matter of convenience euthanasia and would go into this aspect including moral challenges (also in veterinary practice) in more detail. A short overview of circumstances that my lead to, and consequences of, euthanasia have been added. The moral challenges of euthanasia, and whether it is true euthanasia for the benefit of the dog being euthanised, or the death of the dog is chosen as the best outcome for the owner is a complex topic. Giving the topic it’s full due is outside the scope of this paper but agree that more explanation would benefit readers who may be outside of the sheltering or veterinary worlds. Text added to introduction (lines 57-65): Relinquishment can harm welfare when there is reduced capacity to care for relinquished dogs in the new temporary or permanent home. Inability to provide for dogs can lead to the morally challenging decision as to whether euthanasia is chosen, either at the level of the owner who no longer feels able to care for the dog or those providing management of unowned dog populations and local authority or non-governmental sheltering organisations (11). In addition to the impact on canine welfare, the ethically complex decision to euthanise a dog for the lack of appropriate care options, however humane the physical act, can cause moral injury to all people involved (12). Euthanasia is also an essential welfare tool, enabling the relief of suffering, and may be withheld to prolong a human’s relationship with their dog. This is especially concerning given the strong owner-dog relationship to dogs with extreme body type (13) that may necessitate euthanasia. Line 63-69: As these are important factors for the analysis, these factors should not only be listed, but it would be helpful for the reader if the content would be unpacked. E.g. what is meant by lack of problem behaviour. We have clarified what is meant by problem behaviour, and explained the expected association between some risk factors and the owner-dog relationship (lines 79 -88): Dog characteristics associated with a stronger owner-dog relationship include smaller size (18), purebred breed status (compared to crossbreeds) (15), and brachycephalic conformation (with strong owner-dog relationships identified in some extreme brachycephalic breeds: the Pug, French Bulldog, and English Bulldog) (13). In contrast, weaker owner-dog relationships were observed when the only purpose for the dog was companionship compared to working, sporting or show purposes (19). The presence of dog behaviours normally considered a problem by the owner has been associated with a weaker owner-dog relationship (18,20). Reward based, rather than aversive, training techniques to address or prevent problem behaviours, can be more effective (21) and can be associated with a stronger owner-dog relationship (22,23). Line 72- 76: Same applies here. I think this information needs to be unpacked: What negative long-term effects on behaviour and health? I would provide precise examples and descriptions. Further, explain what is meant by “poor-welfare” source? We have explained this phrase used to describe suppliers whose dogs have poor welfare, and have given an example of negative long-term effects (lines 97-101): They were also more likely to have risked negative long-term effects on behaviour and health by acquiring their puppy from a poor-welfare source, that is, a breeder or third party supplier who may be selling puppies without due provision for their and their parents’ physical, behavioural, and developmental needs and concealing maternal hereditable and infectious ill health (28,29). Line 84: “impact on dog welfare” This is an often-used term and should be clarified at the very beginning what is meant by this and in what way the dog welfare is impacted. Should be unpacked here and will be of help for the whole manuscript and your arguments. A very good suggestion and the introduction has been rewritten accordingly (lines 47-51): A person’s welfare is their health and happiness (1), and similarly animal welfare has been defined as how the animal is feeling (2). Animal welfare is often interpreted using the Five Domains Model, considering the animal’s mental state regarding their experiences of nutrition, their environment, physical health, and behavioural interactions (3). Methods: Risk factor variables and Table 1: This table is a bit hard to follow and it might be a good idea to introduce some of them in a more detailed way in the introduction including your assumption in which direction the factors may impact owner-dog bond. We have now introduced the types of risk factors investigated in this study in the introduction, with explanation as to why they are included and the expected effect on the owner-dog relationship. As that has now been covered, the main purpose of the table is now to list the risk factors that were investigated, and have classified into groups of related concepts to aid the reader, alongside a comment on the primary reason for considering that risk factor. Line 179-183: Here, or in the introduction I would expect a short explanation of differences training methods. This would be further helpful for the discussion. An explanation of training method expected association with relationship has been added to the introduction, addressed above. In the methods, more detail has been provided on how (Brand et al. 2024) derived a training style from reported use of training methods (line 218-224). Respondents reported training methods or aids that they used on their dog up to 21-months of age. Based on the principles of operant conditioning, each method or aid was classified was as reward-based (positive reinforcement, negative punishment) or aversive (negative reinforcement, positive punishment). Respondents were allocated a training style based on the classification of methods or aids they used as reward-only, aversive-only, rewards with one aversive method, or rewards with more than one aversive method (31). Results: Line: 291: “%” is missing Added. Figure 2: In general, I really like this figure and it provides a good overview of your results. For publication, a better resolution of the figure is needed. The resolution is currently very poor and hard to read. This figure has been revised and resolution improved. Few suggestions: Line 336-343: As this is a really long heading for a table, you can think about to replaces info (Line 336-343) in footnotes We have separated it into the figure title (in bold) and the figure legend (normal text) as per the PLOS formatting guidelines. “No change in care provision” and “Change in care provision” reads a bit irritating and it is not very clear what is meant by this while exploring your figure. Might be better to choose a more precise description that reflects this aspect We have changed this to “change in care arrangements” to be clearer. Figure 3: In general, I really like this figure and it provides a good overview of your results. For publication, a better resolution of the figure is needed. The resolution is currently very poor and hard to read. This figure has been revised and resolution improved. Line 376-382: As this is a really long heading for a table, you can think about to replaces info (Line 336-343) in footnotes We have separated it into the figure title (in bold) and the figure legend (normal text) as per the PLOS formatting guidelines. “<6m to acquire” � I would include “decision” here Decision is now included. Line 399-401: Again, an explanation for reader who are not familiar with certain training techniques, would be of help. Further explanation added to introduction and methods. This paragraph edited for clarity (lines . Using only one aversive-based method compared to two or more aversive-based training methods was associated with increased Closeness scores (Fig 3). Discussion: Line 419: “impact” instead of “harm” Changed as suggested. Line 421: Again, what is meant by dog welfare? See comment for introduction. Added to introduction as suggested. Line 428-434: Methods section? This repetition of the reliability result was removed. Line 434-436: Should go in the limitation section Moved to limitations as suggested. Line 441: I would provide more details for each aspect. This has now been elaborated more in the introduction as described in the above responses. Line 445-448: As this is an ongoing debate, I would expect a bit more reflection on euthanasia based on aggressive behavior. We agree that euthanasia based on aggressive behaviour is an important and topical point. However, there was an insufficient sample to specifically analyse this outcome in this study and thus we had not focused upon this heavily in the discussion. We have further reflected on your point and added a suggestion for future research below based on your sug Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316166.r002
9 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Joshua Kamani, Editor Lasting Lockdown Love? Problem behaviour and pandemic and non-pandemic related risk factors influencing the owner-dog relationship in a UK cohort of dogs reaching early adulthood PONE-D-24-29934R1 Dear Dr. Rowena M A Packer 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, Joshua Kamani, PhD 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 ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 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 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 ****** 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 ****** 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) ****** 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: Yes: Svenja Springer ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316166.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Joshua Kamani, Editor PONE-D-24-29934R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Packer, 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. Joshua Kamani Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316166.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 .