Dear Dr. Delanoeije,

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.

The Manuscript is well written, but the Reviewers final requirements will entitle the final version with the elegance and scientific soundness the Journal is exhibiting. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 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.

• 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 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,

Ioana Gutu, Postdoctoral

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical considerations related to the study respondents: the data cannot be made publicly available as per the ethical approval granted for the original studies. Data are available from the Research Ethics Committee (cETO) of the Open University of the Netherlands (OU; U2016/00165/CBO and U2022/08386), (contact via mayke.janssens@ou.nl) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Materials and quantitative analysis methods (including code) that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thanks for your article which shows a different dimension to human animal interaction. I wondered if you have heard of the below articles or have any thoughts as to how this may modify your discussion and outcome.

Companion animals and child development outcomes: longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of a UK birth cohort study | BMC Pediatrics | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding - PMC (nih.gov)

Working with animals: Implications for employees’ compassion, awe, prosocial behavior, and task performance - Yam - 2023 - Personnel Psychology - Wiley Online Library

Also, whilst I realise that this is a complex topic as well as a complex methodology to navigate around is there a way to optimise pictorials ie showing a diagram of the clusters with linked summary at the end or prior tot he discussion to make it easier to follow the assumptions and the outlined associations inferred ?

Otherwise well written despite its complexity.

Reviewer #2: I have read the manuscript thoroughly and I appreciate the effort. The importance of Human-animal interaction with caregivers cannot be overemphasized and this manuscript lay it bear. I will implore the authors to consider stating years or months the respondent had been with the dog or cat as an inclusion criteria or part of their analysis.

Also, the conclusion was not clearly written so that can be addressed.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Olubunmi Arogunmati

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

“Pet effect” patterns: Dynamics of animal presence and caregiver affect across (tele)work and non-work contexts

PONE-D-24-27055R1

Dear Dr. Joni Delanoeije,

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,

Ioana Gutu, Postdoctoral

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript is accepted under the following reserve

As one of the Reviewers pointed out, please can you kindly ensure that headings do not fall in awkward points ie end of page as when reading Materials and Methods pg 7 line 310,Data Analysis pg 11 line 310, subsequent headings positioned after this will be impacted on by placement of figures.

Also, please could you clarify with authors about line 362/3 page 14 ie Dudahart and Calinsky measures based on within- and between-errors

363 from clusters with no clear results regarding the quality of the solutionDuda Hart Index(DHI) is currently outlined ie Duda-Hart, D -Index or Duda Index (https://permetrics.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pages/clustering/DHI.html) and Calinsky measure as Calinski -Harabasz Index ( in R) (https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/52838/what-is-an-acceptable-value-of-the-calinski-harabasz-ch-criterion)

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for this article and the revisions for which I am grateful.

Also, please could you clarify with publishers/editor about line 362/3 page 14 ie Dudahart and Calinsky measures based on within- and between-errors

363 from clusters with no clear results regarding the quality of the solutionDuda Hart Index(DHI) is currently outlined ie Duda-Hart, D -Index or Duda Index (https://permetrics.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pages/clustering/DHI.html) and Calinsky measure as Calinski -Harabasz Index ( in R) (https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/52838/what-is-an-acceptable-value-of-the-calinski-harabasz-ch-criterion)?

All the best.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********