PONE-D-23-21438

Informal Workers' Perceptions of Retirement Planning in Developing Countries

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prasad,

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 has been assessed by two reviewers, and their comments are appended below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that require attention to ensure the manuscript meets our submission guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). The introduction should provide background that puts the manuscript into context and allows readers outside the field to understand the purpose and significance of the study. Please also pay close attention to addressing reviewer 2's concerns regarding the methodology of the manuscript. Our publication criteria (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication) indicate that the methods and reagents must be described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described and sample sizes must be large enough to produce robust results.

Please note, at this time we cannot guarantee future acceptance of this manuscript. Continued consideration of the manuscript is contingent upon thorough revision. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 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,

Laura Kelly

Division 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB

4. 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.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

7. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[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: No

**********

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: No

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 should not be published as it is because of inconsistent use of capitalization make the paper unintelligible. Financial planning and other terms are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not capitalized. These mistakes are critical mistakes in grammar. Even more frustrating is that the authors have a unique opportunity to describe the Fiji pension system within the context of the Fji labor market. However the authors assume readers know the basic facts about Fiji. The section on the superannuation scheme is completely impenetrable. The authors should imagine sitting in a room of intelligent pension experts and seek to describe the system. After reading this paper carefully I absolutely have no idea what the Fiji pension system is like. The authors also states they have established causality between financial literacy and subjective willingness to contribute to the Fiji system. But this is not made clear. We always need papers on the world‘s pension systems and the inclusion of informal workers into social insurance schemes is probably the most important issue facing modern market economies. But this paper fails at describing, even the simplest terms, with the system is in Fiji. So frustrating. I would love to know about the Fiji superannuation schemes and policies that would bring in informal sector workers into the schemes.

Discussion on farming and the relationship between that and market vendors is not clear to me. And the authors should spend more time describing the actual Fiji superannuation system and what the market offenders are supposed to understand, instead of writing about United Nation’s millennium goals and general food shortages.

Reviewer #2: This paper examines whether and to what extent informal sector workers (i.e., vegetable market venders, or farmers) in Fiji engage in retirement savings—primarily by evaluating their awareness and access to Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF). In doing so, the authors deploy several empirical estimation strategies including the OLS regression, correlation analysis, and principal component analysis on a first-hand survey (case studies?) of 71 respondents. The authors find that most respondents regarded FNPF in a positive light, with 60-70% of the respondents being aware of the FNPF scheme and its benefits. Yet, 94% of them still preferred an alternative pension scheme that is better tailored for them. The authors also find that age, gender, years of experience (duration) in the current job, and availability of other venues for savings strongly predicted the likelihood of being aware of FNPF schemes.

While I see the value in the authors’ introducing a primary dataset on an underexplored group of informal agricultural sector workers in Fiji, I find several limitations in the overall framing (i.e., motivation for examining FNPF) of the research questions, estimation strategies, and interpretation of the results. Moreover, the authors equate ‘awareness’ of a government-sponsored pension/superannuation scheme (i.e., FNPF) with ‘financial literacy’—when these two are discussed as two distinct concepts in the current literature. Detailed comments are provided as an attachment.

**********

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: Referee Report_ZL_20240113.docx

PONE-D-23-21438R1Informal Workers' Perceptions of Retirement Planning in Developing CountriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prasad,

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: Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. While the manuscript has clearly improved from the original submission, I feel that some of the changes made by the authors still fall short of addressing concerns raised by Reviewer 3 (comments are attached in a separate document). Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses Reviewer 3's concerns.

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'. Instead of the document with track changes (difficult to read), please highlight the changed/newly-added sections in red.

• 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Should you choose to proceed with the revision, please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 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.

Kind Regards,

Zeewan Lee

Guest 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://ddec1-0-en-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fjournals.plos.org%2fplosone%2fs%2ffile%3fid%3dwjVg%2fPLOSOne%5fformatting%5fsample%5fmain%5fbody.pdf&umid=d595e888-7493-410c-a420-0c83e1f209b7&auth=8d3ccd473d52f326e51c0f75cb32c9541898e5d5-f7be46a4b3c543781ac30e939380323191ae18e3 and

https://ddec1-0-en-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fjournals.plos.org%2fplosone%2fs%2ffile%3fid%3dba62%2fPLOSOne%5fformatting%5fsample%5ftitle%5fauthors%5faffiliations.pdf&umid=d595e888-7493-410c-a420-0c83e1f209b7&auth=8d3ccd473d52f326e51c0f75cb32c9541898e5d5-87faa588aaa1d911ceaada18a13f693781898e26

2. If you have not done so, and if necessary, please submit Funding Statement where you declare all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at https://ddec1-0-en-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=http%3a%2f%2fjournals.plos.org%2fplosone%2fs%2fsubmit%2dnow&umid=d595e888-7493-410c-a420-0c83e1f209b7&auth=8d3ccd473d52f326e51c0f75cb32c9541898e5d5-818317a14a2838fce05fa09144a6ff017a57711d.

3. 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. 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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: Thank you for your comments and improvements. This is a very important topic. Fijian street vendors attitudes towards pensions. They want them

Reviewer #3: (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 #1: No

Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D23-21438_Review.docx

PONE-D-23-21438R2Informal Workers' Perceptions of Retirement Planning in Developing CountriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prasad,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 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,

Zeewan Lee

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments :

I would like to thank the authors for their hard work in revising the manuscript. As an action editor (guest editor) and a former reviewer in the first round, I have taken a thorough look at the past reviewers’ comments as well as authors’ responses to the comments. Upon reviewing, I have decided to accept the paper with a minor revision. Please see my comments below:

1. Better highlight contributions: In the introduction section, it would be great if the authors could explicitly state what the contributions of this paper is. What is new in this paper that the prior literature has not done? For instance, in line 123-124, the authors stated that they gained first-hand info on the market vendors’ view toward superannuation. Is this a first paper to do so in Fiji?

2. Literature Review section: Lines 134-142 are awkward. The authors say this: “It begins by reviewing literature on the association between the informal sector and financial literacy. It then reviews the literature on retirement planning, and superannuation schemes in developing countries. The link between these groupings is that informal sector workers may lack financial literacy.”

2-1. If this is the case, why not combine the three sections to center the discussion on the role of financial literacy? For instance, why not make a section named “informal sector, superannuation, and financial literacy”? The last two sections (“retirement planning” AND “superannuation in dev. countries”) could definitely be combined.

2-2. Try to weave in lines 137-142 inside the actual sections (i.e., informal sector and financial literacy, superannuation, or a combined section).

2-3. How does the current paper fit in the line of literature reviewed in the Lit Review section? How should the readers situate this paper, vis-à-vis all the papers mentioned in the Lit Review section? I would like to see some comments on this, before the authors move onto the Data section.

3. Data and Methods Section – Objective 1: Equation (1) and Equation (2)—lines 343-346—seem to be exactly the same except the outcomes. In such a case, please show only one equation with an outcome listed as ‘outcome’, and explain that the authors test two outcomes in separate regressions.

3-1. Please describe the variables used in complete sentences instead of a table (Table 1). It is more typical to describe them within the text—in a full paragraph.

4. Data and Methods Section – Objective 2: Please elaborate more on the ‘thematic analysis’ of the interview questions. What are the themes or the method of the analysis?

5. Results – Regression results (Table 4 & Table 5): The authors need not show too many decimal points, or the z-statistics. It would be clearer if the authors could present coefficients, standard errors, and statistical significance in the form of asterisks next to the coefficients (For instance * if p<0.1, ** if p<0.05, *** if p<0.001).

5-1. Please streamline the tables. The authors don’t need two separate tables just to show two outcomes. These could be combined into one table. This way, readers will be able to compare the results (of the two outcome variables) more easily.

Minor

6. Line 46 – improve citation: It is great to see more information on the size of the informal sector in Fiji. Please list the year of the cited stats, and if it is from too far back, please acknowledge in a footnote that more recent statistic is not available.

7. Sample – acknowledge limitations: Please acknowledge in the Discussion Section that convenience sampling is used. What are some implications of doing so? For instance, would there be any potential selection bias in the sample that the authors could not address in the current study? It would be good to clearly acknowledge it as one of the limitations.

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

Reviewers' comments: N/A

[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.

Informal Workers' Perceptions of Retirement Planning in Developing Countries

PONE-D-23-21438R3

Dear Dr. Prasad,

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,

Zeewan Lee

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All comments have been sufficiently addressed. Thank you for the revision efforts.

Reviewers' comments: