The influence of erotic camsites on improving men’s body comfort: A qualitative analysis of mechanisms

Amanda N. Gesselman; Ellen M. Kaufman; Jessica T. Campbell; Margaret Bennett-Brown; Melissa Blundell Osorio; Camden Smith; Malia Piazza; Zoe Moscovici

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318727

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 22, 2024
22 Oct 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318727.r001
9 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Poowin Bunyavejchewin, Editor PONE-D-24-45807The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of MechanismsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gesselman, 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 review the comments and recommendations made by Reviewers 1 and 2, and consider addressing them and making revisions. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 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. 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, Poowin Bunyavejchewin, PhD 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This project was funded by Byborg Enterprises, owner of the website LiveJasmin.com. The funder was not involved in the design of the survey from which the current manuscript draws data, and was not involved in the analyses, writing, or decision to publish the current manuscript.” 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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: I commend the authors for conducting an in-depth investigation of an understudied aspect of online sexual activity, and for using qualitative methods to fill in some considerable gaps in our knowledge about camsite use. I believe the authors offer valuable contributions to the literature, but I have two substantial concerns regarding their presentation of their findings. Pending successful resolution of these concerns, I would be excited to see their manuscript published. On a smaller note, the manuscript title suggests a broader scope of outcomes (e.g., positive versus negative) than the authors actually report on. The title could more clearly indicate that the manuscript is focused specifically on positive outcomes related to body comfort. My first critique centers on the use of the tripartite model: I think it is inaccurate to characterize camsite performers as peers of their viewers. In fact, unless I’m reading it wrong, the article the authors cite for the tripartite model adds an additional category of romantic partners to its analyses, rather than sorting them into the “peers” category (Tylka, 2011). Conceptually, I imagine the performers are probably closer to potential romantic partners than to friends in the minds of their clients. So, I am not sure the tripartite model provides theoretical justification for studying how interactions with performers might affect clients. I do not think the authors necessarily need to provide theoretical justification for their approach, but I think the paper is not helped by the current approach of categorizing performers as peers. Perhaps they could describe in greater detail the studies conducted thus far on outcomes associated with visiting camming sites (i.e., citations 49-51 in the manuscript), which seem to provide ample context and motivation for just a study of this kind. My second concern is that the authors do not contextualize their findings alongside the 81% of participants who did not describe any positive body comfort-related changes related to their use of LiveJasmin.com. Were any questions asked about potentially negative body comfort-related changes? What might the other four in five site users be experiencing? Not one sentence in this manuscript – I sincerely apologize if I missed it – alludes to the possibility that visiting camsites could also negatively affect men’s body comfort. I want to be clear that I’m not against any of the findings here – it is encouraging and important that a subset of frequent and highly engaged camsite visitors are experiencing apparent increases in body comfort as a result of their activities on the site. But as at most about 4% of the overall sample is reporting even the most common themes listed here, I would ask that the authors acknowledge in the discussion and/or limitations section(s) that (1) the majority of study participants did not report positive changes in body comfort, and the implications thereof; (2) that specific themes apply to a very small proportion of the overall sample; and (3) that it is possible some of the participants excluded from these analyses are experiencing negative impacts as well (see Milrod & Monto, 2023, which the authors cite). Doing so would open up an avenue for speculation on the authors’ part as to why certain men experience these positive changes in body comfort, while others do not, or may experience negative impacts. Understanding why men fall into these different categories could also be a topic of future research. Doing so would also potentially alleviate concerns among eventual readers that an article funded by the website itself – even though the funders were not involved in the study design and manuscript preparation – is not considering the full range of prior research and potential effects of engaging with camsites. Reviewer #2: The manuscript “The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of Mechanisms” is incredibly interesting due to its novel assessment of men’s perceptions of their bodies related to engagement with campsites. This manuscript has great potential to add to the literature, however, major revisions to the structuring of the manuscript are warranted to improve the clarity and conciseness of the background, methodology, and results primarily. Please see my tailored recommendations below: Abstract 1. Make clear the data being assessed are responses from an open text box on a survey that is a subsection of the total sample. 2. Comb through and remove unnecessary prepositions or prepositional phrases, the abstract reads chunky and interrupts the flow. Introduction 1. Remove the last paragraph, as it is redundant and too similar to your abstract. 2. I would suggest chunking the introduction into sections that highlight (1) the impact of men’s self-perception on their health, (2) the impacts of pornography on perceptions of self, (3) a brief explanation of camsites, and (4) introduce the study aim/goal. The authors have all the parts here, cuts need to be made to reduce the length of the introduction. Potentially aim for 3-3.5 pages max, Methods 1. Description of the tripartite model, adjustments that were made for this study, and potentially a figure to illustrate how the manuscript findings map on to the model. 2. Add a table 1 of sociodemographic variables; this would greatly reduce the confusion I had about who was surveyed and how many people were assessed for this manuscript. 3. Under “Body comfort,” operationalize what ‘various areas’ are or remove as you list the questions after. 4. In the OSF database, I suggest adding in the blank survey that participants took. You can then reference the survey and reduce word count. 5. Under data analysis, make clear that the authors are analyzing an open text box – otherwise great explanation of the methodology used! Results 1. Potentially add a table 2 that reports themes, definition of themes, and representative quotes. This will remove some quotes from parentheses and condense the manuscript word count and read cleaner. 2. Stay consistent in how you utilize quotes; some are located in parentheses, while others are not and become jarring to read. 3. Concise conceptualization of results is necessary, and part of that can be mitigated by removing a few unnecessary quotes; however, I found the results impactful nonetheless. Discussion 1. I am interested in knowing more about the different conceptualizations of response form models and talking to models, perhaps add more in the discussion about that. Additionally, more information about how potential interactions between the identified themes may bolster self-perception. ****** 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.0318727.r002
Revision 1
19 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Bunyavejchewin and PLOS One reviewers, Thank you for your time and feedback on our manuscript, “The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of Mechanisms.” We gave serious consideration to all critiques, and believe that our revised manuscript is much stronger than our original submission. Below, we respond to all feedback we received from the editor and two reviewers, and note how we revised the paper to reflect that feedback. In brief, our most substantial changes to the manuscript were: 1. We removed mentions of the tripartite model from the manuscript. This was originally included as a theoretical justification for our study, but feedback from Reviewer 1 pointed out the weaknesses in this model as a foundation for our research. Reviewer 1 noted that the paper did not need a theoretical foundation, and Reviewer 2 noted that the Introduction section of the paper was already much too long. Taken together, we decided to remove the model from the paper entirely, rather than expand upon the model to make a stronger argument. 2. We revised our Results section, reducing the number of participant quotes included to represent each theme and rewriting some sections to ensure no quotations were included in parentheses, in line with Reviewer 2’s feedback. We also included Table 2, which outlines and defines each theme, and provides representative quotes for each. 3. We included a paragraph in the Limitations section of the Discussion that contextualizes our findings within the full sample of participants. In particular, although we found that 19% of participants reported improved body comfort as a result of camsite usage, the remaining 81% of the sample did not report such an outcome. Our original manuscript did not acknowledge the lack of body comfort improvement in that 81% or discuss potential implications for those individuals. Our revised manuscript does so, in line with Reviewer 1’s feedback. Although these were our most extensive revisions, please note that we revised every section of the manuscript to align with reviewer feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work to PLOS One. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you! Feedback from the Editor 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.pdfaand https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf --We’ve revised our paper so that all section headers, file names, etc. match the PLOS ONE style guide. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This project was funded by Byborg Enterprises, owner of the website LiveJasmin.com. The funder was not involved in the design of the survey from which the current manuscript draws data, and was not involved in the analyses, writing, or decision to publish the current manuscript.” 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. --We’ve revised our financial disclosure to state, “This project was funded by Byborg Enterprises, owner of the website LiveJasmin.com. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” We’ve included this in our cover letter. Reviewer 1 feedback 1. I commend the authors for conducting an in-depth investigation of an understudied aspect of online sexual activity, and for using qualitative methods to fill in some considerable gaps in our knowledge about camsite use. I believe the authors offer valuable contributions to the literature, but I have two substantial concerns regarding their presentation of their findings. Pending successful resolution of these concerns, I would be excited to see their manuscript published. --We thank Reviewer 1 for their time reviewing our manuscript. We’ve replied to each of your points of feedback below. 2. On a smaller note, the manuscript title suggests a broader scope of outcomes (e.g., positive versus negative) than the authors actually report on. The title could more clearly indicate that the manuscript is focused specifically on positive outcomes related to body comfort. --We’ve changed our title from “The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of Mechanisms” to “The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Improving Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of Mechanisms.” 3. My first critique centers on the use of the tripartite model: I think it is inaccurate to characterize camsite performers as peers of their viewers. In fact, unless I’m reading it wrong, the article the authors cite for the tripartite model adds an additional category of romantic partners to its analyses, rather than sorting them into the “peers” category (Tylka, 2011). Conceptually, I imagine the performers are probably closer to potential romantic partners than to friends in the minds of their clients. So, I am not sure the tripartite model provides theoretical justification for studying how interactions with performers might affect clients. I do not think the authors necessarily need to provide theoretical justification for their approach, but I think the paper is not helped by the current approach of categorizing performers as peers. Perhaps they could describe in greater detail the studies conducted thus far on outcomes associated with visiting camming sites (i.e., citations 49-51 in the manuscript), which seem to provide ample context and motivation for just a study of this kind. --Thank you for pointing out this weakness in our manuscript. After reading your feedback and re-reading our paper, we’ve decided to remove the tripartite model completely. We agree that the extent to which we’d included this model wasn’t a strong enough link to our study to create a thorough theoretical argument. We opted to remove it from the paper rather than expand on it because Reviewer 2 noted that our manuscript, and particularly our Introduction section, was too long and needed to be reduced by at least one page of text, and because you—Reviewer 1—noted that this theoretical foundation wasn’t necessary to justify our study’s contribution to the literature. 4. My second concern is that the authors do not contextualize their findings alongside the 81% of participants who did not describe any positive body comfort-related changes related to their use of LiveJasmin.com. Were any questions asked about potentially negative body comfort-related changes? What might the other four in five site users be experiencing? Not one sentence in this manuscript – I sincerely apologize if I missed it – alludes to the possibility that visiting camsites could also negatively affect men’s body comfort. I want to be clear that I’m not against any of the findings here – it is encouraging and important that a subset of frequent and highly engaged camsite visitors are experiencing apparent increases in body comfort as a result of their activities on the site. But as at most about 4% of the overall sample is reporting even the most common themes listed here, I would ask that the authors acknowledge in the discussion and/or limitations section(s) that (1) the majority of study participants did not report positive changes in body comfort, and the implications thereof; (2) that specific themes apply to a very small proportion of the overall sample; and (3) that it is possible some of the participants excluded from these analyses are experiencing negative impacts as well (see Milrod & Monto, 2023, which the authors cite). Doing so would open up an avenue for speculation on the authors’ part as to why certain men experience these positive changes in body comfort, while others do not, or may experience negative impacts. Understanding why men fall into these different categories could also be a topic of future research. Doing so would also potentially alleviate concerns among eventual readers that an article funded by the website itself – even though the funders were not involved in the study design and manuscript preparation – is not considering the full range of prior research and potential effects of engaging with camsites. --Thank you for this observation and for the many helpful suggestions for acknowledging and expanding upon this oversight. We have added the following section to the Limitations that directly addresses the generalizability of our findings and touches upon each of the points you mention above: It should also be noted that our findings reflect the experiences of a relatively small proportion (19%) of the overall sample, and should not be considered generalizable to the general population or even the majority of camsite users. Most participants (81%) in the overall sample, for example, did not report improved body comfort. It is not a requirement for clients to appear on camera or discuss their bodies with models, so for many clients, one’s own body comfort may not be deemed relevant during their online sessions. A more critical challenge to interpreting this finding is the phrasing of our measure; because we asked participants if they experienced “more” as opposed to a “change” in body comfort, it is not possible to parse if the majority of participants in the study experienced a decrease in body comfort as opposed to no change at all. This distinction would offer valuable insight for researchers in this area, particularly if findings suggest that the majority of cam site users are experiencing a negative change in body comfort as a result of time spent on the site. These results would run counter to previous research, however, which suggest that negative outcomes (e.g., feeling worse about their sex lives, negative emotional consequences) from camming use are limited to a minority of participants (Milrod & Monto, 2023). Nevertheless, we might expect that, consistent with media effects research that links pornography consumption with increased negative body image, some participants may experience decreased body comfort while using the site. Future research should aim to provide participants with a more neutrally-phrased opportunity for sharing their experiences with body comfort to uncover these nuances. Thanks again to Reviewer 1 for helping us to strengthen our manuscript. Reviewer 2 feedback 1. The manuscript “The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of Mechanisms” is incredibly interesting due to its novel assessment of men’s perceptions of their bodies related to engagement with campsites. This manuscript has great potential to add to the literature, however, major revisions to the structuring of the manuscript are warranted to improve the clarity and conciseness of the background, methodology, and results primarily. Please see my tailored recommendations below: --Thank you to Reviewer 2 for their time and effort reviewing our manuscript. We’ve incorporated nearly all of our feedback into our manuscript. We reply to each of your points below. 2. Abstract: Make clear the data being assessed are responses from an open text box on a survey that is a subsection of the total sample. Comb through and remove unnecessary prepositions or prepositional phrases, the abstract reads chunky and interrupts the flow. --Thank you for this feedback. We have made edits to the abstract to provide further methodological clarity and to improve the flow of the language. 3. Introduction: Remove the last paragraph, as it is redundant and too similar to your abstract. --We’ve removed the majority of that paragraph from the manuscript so that it is not redundant with the abstract. 4. Introduction: I would suggest chunking the introduction into sections that highlight (1) the impact of men’s self-perception on their health, (2) the impacts of pornography on perceptions of self, (3) a brief explanation of camsites, and (4) introduce the study aim/goal. The authors have all the parts here, cuts need to be made to reduce the length of the introduction. Potentially aim for 3-3.5 pages max, --Thank you for this suggestion. We have added headers to the Introduction and have also made edits to this section in the interest of length. 5. Methods: Description of the tripartite model, adjustments that were made for this study, and potentially a figure to illustrate how the manuscript findings map on to the model. --In response to Reviewer 1’s feedback, we’ve decided to remove the tripartite model from the manuscript. See our reply to their 3rd comment above. 6. Methods: Add a table 1 of sociodemographic variables; this would greatly reduce the confusion I had about who was surveyed and how many people were assessed for this manuscript. --We’ve added this table and removed text explaining participant demographics. 7. Methods: Under “Body comfort,” operationalize what ‘various areas’ are or remove as you list the questions after. --We’ve removed “various areas”. 8. Methods: In the OSF database, I suggest adding in the blank survey that participants took. You can then reference the survey and reduce word count. --We’ve added the survey to the OSF database and included a link in the Methods section. 9. Methods: Under data analysis, make clear that the authors are analyzing an open text box – otherwise great explanation of the methodology used! --Thank you. We’ve edited the Data Analysis section to read, “Participants who reported an increase in comfort with their bodies were provided an open text box to describe what has helped them become more comfortable. To analyze the qualitative responses from that open text box…” 10. Results: Potentially add a table 2 that reports themes, definition of themes, and representative quotes. This will remove some quotes from parentheses and condense the manuscript word count and read cleaner. --We’ve added this as Table 2. 11. Results: Stay consistent in how you utilize quotes; some are located in parentheses, while others are not and become jarring to read. --We’ve removed all quotes from inside parentheses and have reduced the number of quotes included in each theme’s section of the Results. 12. Results: Concise conceptualization of results is necessary, and part of that can be mitigated by removing a few unnecessary quotes; however, I found the results impactful nonetheless. --See our response to #11 above. 13. Discussion: I am interested in knowing more about the different conceptualizations of response form models and talking to models, perhaps add more in the discussion about that. Additionally, more information about how potential interactions between the identified themes may bolster self-perception. --We’ve edited the manuscript to make clear the differences between ‘Response from Models’ and ‘Talking to Models’ throughout. For example, in the Results section, we wrote: “Although thematically similar to responses coded as ‘Response from models,’ 4.4% (n = 21) of participants specifically highlighted how having body-related discussions with models—rather than receiving compliments or observing the models’ behavior with regards to the participants’ bodies, as in ‘Response from models’—helped them experience greater comfort with their bodies.” Additionally, in the Discussion section, we included the following: “Although this only manifested in 4.4% of responses, the theme ‘Talking to models’ reflects distinct mechanisms for improving body comfort. This theme emphasized communication beyond compliments and reactions—as in the ‘Response from models’ category—including thorough discussions about bodies, sexual fantasies, and preferences.” Finally, thank you for your thoughtful suggestion rega Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318727.r003
22 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Poowin Bunyavejchewin, Editor The Influence of Erotic Camsites on Improving Men’s Body Comfort: A Qualitative Analysis of Mechanisms PONE-D-24-45807R1 Dear Dr. Gesselman, 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, Poowin Bunyavejchewin, 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors have done an excellent job incorporating all the feedback provided; very good job and this is very interesting work! ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318727.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Poowin Bunyavejchewin, Editor PONE-D-24-45807R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gesselman, 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 Poowin Bunyavejchewin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318727.r005

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 .