How are brands associated by users in short videos—A study on the mechanism of user associations with brand placements in short videos based on signal theory

Zhang Yang; Sun Dongqi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316905

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 5, 2024
15 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Hua Pang, Editor PONE-D-24-22415How are brands associated by users in short videos - A study on the mechanism of user associations with brand placements in short videos based on signal theoryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 29 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, Hua Pang Academic 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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. 3. 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [The Outstanding Young Talent Project of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2023 (YQYB2023154); and the Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2022 (2022AH052746) provided support for this study.]. 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This paper was supported by the Outstanding Young Talent Project of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2023 (YQYB2023154) and the Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2022 (2022AH052746)] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [The Outstanding Young Talent Project of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2023 (YQYB2023154); and the Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2022 (2022AH052746) provided support for this study.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [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: The paper has substantial contributions. The authors provided sufficient literature support, appropriate methodology including data collection and analysis methods. The findings are also acceptable. However, they can improve language and sentence structure. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is of good quality and topic, but: In the introduction, no specific scenario is followed. The importance of the subject? Target? Knowledge gap? Innovation? Theoretical and practical contribution? In the literature, it has been tried to make an essay rather than analyzing the literature and examining the relationships between variables analytically There are many uncertainties in the methodology. Statistical population? Sample? Study case? How to collect data? Sampling? Questionnaire questions? In the discussion, the results of the hypotheses - the reasons for rejecting and accepting the hypotheses and comparing it with previous findings. The implications are very weak. Rewrite again ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316905.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2024 Author Response Respons Academic Editor and Reviewer The red highlighted items in the Revised Manual with Track Changes indicate the modifications made. Respons Academic Editor: Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Response:We submitted the manuscript according to the style requirements of PLOS ONE. 2. Ethical approval Response: We have prepared an Ethical Review Exemption Confirmation. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. Response: We have rechecked the financial disclosures. 4. Please state what role the funders took in the study. Response:The Outstanding Young Talent Project of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2023 (YQYB2023154) provides the direction for this research topic. Response:The Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Anhui Provincial Department of Education in 2022 (2022AH052746) provides research and interview support for this article. Response:The Open Fund of Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Philosophy and Social Sciences for Intelligent Decision making Development in Copper Industry (2024LXYTYFZXM03) provides labor cost support for this research. 5. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. Response:We removed the fund information in the Revised Manual with Track Changes and clarified the fund information and its role in the Cover Letter. 6. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. Response: We will provide raw data in Excel spreadsheet format. Response to Reviewer 1 ： Question: they can improve language and sentence structure. Response:We appreciate your positive feedback and thorough review of our manuscript, along with your invaluable comments. The author team acknowledges the presence of certain linguistic issues within the text. In response to your feedback, we have conducted another review of the manuscript and engaged a panel of experienced experts to undertake necessary revisions and enhancements. For example 1 : In the abstract section, this article investigates the mechanism of brand communication in short videos and examines strategies for cultivating brand associations to achieve communication goals. Based on signal theory, this study determined that the perceived value of short videos is the source of signals, brand value and transparency are mediating factors, and brand association is the result. This study adopts hypothesis testing and model construction, supplemented by analysis of 560 valid questionnaires on the research platform, to carefully investigate these mechanisms. Simplify , this study investigates how users associate brands in short videos, drawing on signal theory. We explore the mechanisms through which perceived value, brand transparency, and brand value influence brand associations. Using a sample of 560 valid questionnaires. For example 2 : In the introduction, the "2022 China Consumer Trends Report" suggests that brands should utilize multiple online communication channels to enhance their influence, cultivate long-term trust with users, and establish valuable user cognitive assets. It is worth noting that short videos have become an important channel, experiencing rapid growth and attracting a huge user base. The Statistical Report on China's Internet Development (released on March 2, 2023) shows that by the end of 2022, the number of short video users in China will exceed 1 billion, with a utilization rate of 94.8%. Simplify , According to the '2022 China Consumer Trend Report' and the 'China Internet Development Statistics Report', brands should use multiple online communication channels to enhance their influence and build long-term trust with users. Short videos have become a key channel, with over 1 billion users and a usage rate of 94.8%. For example 3 : reorganize and organize research hypotheses, etc. Response to reviewer 2： Question 1：In the introduction, no specific scenario is followed. The importance of the subject? Target? Knowledge gap? Innovation? Theoretical and practical contribution? Response：We appreciate your expert advice. In response to your suggestions, the author team has thoroughly revised the Introduction section, implementing significant changes. First, to address the lack of specific scenarios and underscore the study's practical relevance, we have incorporated two successful examples of short video brand marketing: Mattress Firm's "Don't Sleep on Sleep" and Starbucks' "Every Table Has a Story". These instances are juxtaposed with the unsuccessful strategies of Audi and Coconut Tree, highlighting the critical differences. This delineation not only clarifies the essential role of effective brand communication in short videos but also reinforces the importance of the research subject discussed in this paper. The revised draft is as follows: In the digital age, the paradigm of brand communication is evolving from traditional one-way dissemination toward more diverse and interactive approaches. The "2022 China Consumer Trend Report" suggests that brands should leverage multiple online communication channels to augment their influence and foster long-term trust with users, thereby building valuable user cognitive assets. Notably, short videos have emerged as a significant channel, experiencing rapid growth and attracting a vast user base. The "Statistical Report on the Development of the Internet in China" (released March 2, 2023) indicates that by the end of 2022, the number of Chinese short video users surpassed one billion, achieving a usage rate of 94.8%(Daily Economic News, 2023) . The varied publishing methods of short videos, coupled with the application of big data technology, have considerably enhanced user reach and provided a more personalized experience. Additionally, the allure of short videos has intensified due to creators' innovative content, making these videos a crucial influence on user decisions and actions (Li and Zhang, 2023) . For instance, "Don’t Sleep on Sleep," a short video by Mattress Firm—the largest mattress retailer in the United States—explores the effects of poor sleep on physical, mental, and emotional health using contextual content, directly boosting sales by 13.7%. Similarly, Starbucks' "Every Table Has a Story" illustrates that the cafe serves as a haven for comfort, inspiration, and community interaction, evidenced by high viewership rates across multiple platforms: 56% on Twitter, 91% on YouTube, and 89% on Facebook/Instagram. Nevertheless, not all brands achieve success through short videos (Zhi hu, 2024) . Audi, for example, suffered reputational damage due to plagiarism in the script of "Moderately Content with Life" (China Business, 2022), and Yeshu Company faced a fine of 400,000 yuan along with criticism from the National Radio and Television Administration for controversial content in their short videos and live broadcasts (Surging news client, 2022) . These challenges underscore the complexities of effective brand communication through short videos, marking it as a critical area of focus. Second, concerning the knowledge gap you identified, the authors have meticulously reviewed existing research and definitively concluded that previous studies have neglected the impact of brands on product purchase intentions and behaviors. Furthermore, research on brand communication in short video clips is lacking, and scholars have not yet explored the influence of brand characteristics on brand associations in this context. This paper addresses these critical knowledge gaps. The revised draft is as follows: Research on brand marketing within short videos remains nascent, primarily concentrating on three core areas: Initially, scholars analyze the attributes of short videos and their influence on brand communication effectiveness. For instance, YAO & KIM (2021) examined authenticity dimensions from a user's perspective, which include originality, relevance, transparency, and experientiality, investigating their impact on both individual and corporate brand communication (Yao and Kim, 2021) . Similarly, Ma and Shao et al. (2020), studying clothing brands, discovered that the characteristics and presentation of short videos directly influence users' perceptions of brand quality(Ma et al., 2020) . Moreover, research suggests that the unique characteristics of users modulate their content receptivity and, consequently, the efficacy of brand marketing. Holmes (2021) explored the correlation between short video users’ self-brand identification and brand communication effectiveness(Holmes, 2021) , while Yang and Zhang et al. (2022) demonstrated that users' self-congruence significantly impacts brand marketing effectiveness in their study of tourism destination brand ambassadors in short videos (Yang et al., 2022) . Additionally, scholars have begun to examine the psychological traits of users during the information reception process as a vital component of their studies. Cho (2020) deemed user experience a crucial factor in analyzing brand awareness in short videos (Cho, 2020) . Aslan Oğuz and Košir et al. (2023) further assessed how user engagement affects brand marketing effectiveness(Aslan Oğuz et al., 2023) . These studies offer fresh insights into the integration of brand information within short videos and delve deeply into brand-related intentions and behaviors. However, the crucial initial step of brand recall by short video users for effective marketing has yet to be addressed in current research. Additionally, while it is evident that a brand's inherent characteristics impact its marketing success in short videos, this area remains unexplored. Third, addressing the issues of 'Target' and 'Innovation' you highlighted, the authors have revised the article’s third paragraph. The opening sentence succinctly outlines the research's main objectives, grounded in practical needs and identified theoretical gaps. The theoretical contributions are explicitly stated in the fourth paragraph. Regarding practical contributions, although briefly mentioned in the context of managerial implications in the third paragraph, they are elaborated in detail in the article's sixth section due to space limitations. The revised draft is as follows: This article, grounded in the framework of signal theory, examines effective strategies for disseminating brand messaging within short video environments and delineates a mechanism that enhances corporate brand marketing efficiency and effectiveness. The study addresses three principal questions: first, what elements in short videos enable users to perceive brand information; second, which brand features influence associations in these videos; and third, what mechanisms underlie these brand associations. Initially employing signal theory, the research investigates the perceived values users extract from short videos and their specific contributing factors. Data gathered through online surveys subsequently allows for an empirical analysis, which confirms the relationship between these factors and brand associations. Brand transparency and value are then examined as mediating variables, their roles verified to explore how they influence the formation of associations in short videos. Finally, informed by these findings, the paper offers actionable recommendations for enterprises on brand dissemination strategies in short videos. The theoretical contribution of this paper lies in its exploration and validation of critical factors in the dissemination of brand information in short videos through signal theory: perceived values, brand features (transparency and value), and user brand associations. Moreover, the study elucidates the mechanisms of these factors, thereby broadening the scope of research in brand marketing within short video contexts and extending the application reach of signal theory. Question 2：In the literature, it has been tried to make an essay rather than analyzing the literature and examining the relationships between variables analytically Response：You noted that the literature review section was rather disorganized due to the merging of 'Theoretical Background' and 'Hypotheses' into a single section, which was improper. After careful consideration, the paper will now divide these into 'Theoretical Background' and 'Hypotheses Development' sections to prevent confusion. Regarding the research review, the current paper has already structured the existing studies while describing the theoretical background in the second paragraph. To maintain the paper's logical coherence, it will not include a separate literature review section. Question3: There are many uncertainties in the methodology. Statistical population? Sample? Study case? How to collect data? Sampling? Questionnaire questions? Response: We appreciate your identification of the oversight. To address this, we have implemented the following corrections: First,a new section titled 'Sample and Study Case' has been added to clarify the selection of Chinese users as the research subjects for this study. This section also details the methodical distribution and randomness of the study sample via an online survey platform. The revised draft is as follows: 3.3 Sample and Study Case The China Online Audio-visual Development Report (2024) reveals that by December 2023, the number of online audio-visual users in China reached 1.074 billion, with a total of 1.55 billion short video accounts across the internet (China Online Audio-Visual Association, 2024). As a result, there is substantial usage and deep market penetration of short videos among Chinese users (Tian et al., 2023)). Considering China's vast population engaged in using short videos, alongside rapid economic growth and the pervasive availability of smart devices, the conditions for usage are favorable and experiences are extensive. Thus, this demographic has been selected as the sample for this study. To guarantee the randomness of the research, surveys will be collected randomly using the paid questionnaire platform Credamo, with participants Second, from the inception of the questionnaire design, this study meticulously considered both its professionalism and readability. Initially, expert colleagues were invited to assess the draft questionnaire. Furthermore, a preliminary survey was conducted to gather feedback on the wording of the items, ensuring the comprehensibility of the final version. This revision has been relocated to the second paragraph of Section 4.2, "Questionnaire Design." The revised draft is as follows: Upon drafting the initial survey questionnaire, the authors sought to enhance both its professionalism and relevance. They engaged peer reviewers to critique the questionnaire, implementing adjustments based on this feedback. Furthermore, to ensure comprehensive understanding of the survey questions among respondents, a preliminary survey was conducted. Comments from this early feedback prompted refinements in the question wording, leading to the finalization of the official research questionnaire. Third, in response to feedback, the newly expanded "Data Collection" section now comprehensively outlines the rationale behind the selection of the data platform for the survey. It also details the preliminary criteria used for screening the data, as well as the quantity and ratio of valid questionnaires collected. The revised draft is as follows: 4.4 Data Collection This study utilized Credamo, a leading paid survey platform in China known for its comprehensive services including questionnaire design, access to millions of online participants, and advanced visual statistical modeling. Credamo, an acronym for Creator of Data and Model (https://www.credamo.com/), serves over 3,000 universities worldwide and 4,000 companies, accommodating over 3 million online participants. Its robust dataset facilitates the identification of participants whose profiles align pr Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316905.r002
19 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Reza Rostamzadeh, Editor How are brands associated by users in short videos - A study on the mechanism of user associations with brand placements in short videos based on signal theory PONE-D-24-22415R1 Dear Dr. Sun, 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, Reza Rostamzadeh 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: 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 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. According to the review done by the authors, the manuscript is acceptable. Congratulations to the authors ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316905.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Reza Rostamzadeh, Editor PONE-D-24-22415R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dongqi, 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. Reza Rostamzadeh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316905.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 .