Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in virtual reality

Mucahit Gemici; Vrushank Phadnis; Anil Ufuk Batmaz

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323796

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 25, 2025
25 Feb 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323796.r001
Decision Letter - Ziyu Qi, Editor PONE-D-25-05813Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in VRPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gemici, 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 address the issues and revisions of reviewers 1 and 2 before I consider accepting the manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 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, Ziyu Qi 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. 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. 3. 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 : Please address the issues and revisions of reviewers 1 and 2 before I consider accepting the manuscript. [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 manuscript entitled "Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in VR" represents an advanced technologies failures discussion which is considered noticeable. The below comments can be noticed for modifications: 1- The major contribution of the research must be explained clearly. 2- As a suggestion, the authors can draw a flowchart to show the research methodology steps graphically. 2- In the title, abbreviations can be used with the complete form of the word, so VR should be written formally (Virtual Reality). 3- On page 2, instead of "Related Work", it is better to use "Literature Review". 4- Figure 15 should be multi-colored to be more representative. 5- In Table 2, F-Score and P-Value must be separated by a comma. Finally, the manuscript requires at least a minor revision. Reviewer #2: In the field of VR, hand tracking quality is often compromised by factors such as low-light, occlusion, out-of-view, and fast motion, making it challenging to ensure a 100% tracking accuracy. This manuscript takes a novel approach by proposing preemptive visual feedback to alert users to adjust their interactions before hand tracking failures occur, offering fresh insights for VR product design and development. Overall, the paper presents complete content with rigorous methodology and experimental design. All critical factors (participant selection, low-light exposure duration, task repetitions, etc.) have been carefully considered. The discussion thoroughly addresses methodological choices and results, with clear awareness of study strengths and limitations. While some limitations exist, they do not undermine the validity of conclusions. The findings provide valuable references for VR product development. However, certain aspects as following require further clarification and confirmation. After addressing these points, the paper will be suitable for publication. Considering the above, I recommend minor revision. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. L262 indicates that low light has been simulated in the first two stages, but L304 only mentions Stage 2. Why is this inconsistent? 2. The task of Stage 2 is to assemble a part. How long does it take? Will the 6s ON : 2s OFF light condition cycle be longer than the task time of this stage, resulting in no occurrence of low illumination in this stage? 3. In the user study procedure, participants repeated the Task 2 for 3 times. But it seems that there’s no comparison between the visual feedback ON/OFF situations. Please explain this point. 4. The benchmark condition does not simulate any hand tracking error or visual warning. So, is tracking failure allowed in actual benchmark experiments? If not allowed, how can we ensure no tracking failures happen in your experiments? In addition, what impact do tracking errors and no tracking errors in benchmark experiments have on the experimental results? 5. Where does the conclusion in L650 come from? From Fig. 14 and 15? But from these two figures, it can be seen that when feedback is turned on, both Task 1 and Task 2 show a significant decrease in TT. 6. In L175, L177, it seems that references to figures should be enclosed in parentheses like in L189, L256, L260, etc. 7. The 'conclusion' in L729 seems to be 'occlusion'. ****** 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.0323796.r002
Revision 1
21 Mar 2025 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to thank you and reviewers for your comments. Here is how we addressed each review in the paper: R1: The major contribution of the research must be explained clearly. Amendments: In the last paragraph of the introduction, we added a paragraph and clearly stated the major contribution of the work in one sentence: “The major contribution of this paper is the design, implementation, and evaluation of a visual early-warning feedback method that proactively alerts users before hand-tracking failures occur in low-cost commercial VR headsets. The primary advancement is shifting from reactive error management toward proactive error prevention in VR hand-tracking interfaces.” R1: As a suggestion, the authors can draw a flowchart to show the research methodology steps graphically. Amendments: We added a flowchart showing the research methodology at the end of the introduction section. R1: In the title, abbreviations can be used with the complete form of the word, so VR should be written formally (Virtual Reality). Amendments: We fixed the title as the reviewer suggested. R1: On page 2, instead of "Related Work", it is better to use "Literature Review". Amendments: As the reviewer suggested, we changed the title of the subsection to “Literature Review.” R1: Figure 15 should be multi-colored to be more representative. Amendments: We changed the color of Figure 16 (Figure number is now changed to 16) to multi-color, as the reviewer suggested. R1: In Table 2, F-Score and P-Value must be separated by a comma. Amendments: We added a comma between F-scores and P-Values in Table 2. R2: L262 indicates that low light has been simulated in the first two stages, but L304 only mentions Stage 2. Why is this inconsistent? Amendments: We thank the reviewer for their comment. The participants experienced the low-intensity light condition in the first two stages of Study 2. We fixed the text on L304. R2: The task of Stage 2 is to assemble a part. How long does it take? Will the 6s ON : 2s OFF light condition cycle be longer than the task time of this stage, resulting in no occurrence of low illumination in this stage? Amendments: On average, stage 1 lasted for 19 seconds, and stage 2 lasted for 11 seconds. We implemented the low-intensity light condition at the beginning of the task (stages 1 and 2), so the participants experienced the hand-tracking error at least once. This is now mentioned in the text. R2: In the user study procedure, participants repeated the Task 2 for 3 times. But it seems that there’s no comparison between the visual feedback ON/OFF situations. Please explain this point. Amendments: One-way ANCOVA results shown in Table 2 include visual feedback on/off conditions. According to these results, we found significant differences for TT, NLT-fingers, and NLT-Hands between feedback on and feedback off conditions. The results are given in the Task 2 Results section and explained in the text. R2 The benchmark condition does not simulate any hand tracking error or visual warning. So, is tracking failure allowed in actual benchmark experiments? If not allowed, how can we ensure no tracking failures happen in your experiments? In addition, what impact do tracking errors and no tracking errors in benchmark experiments have on the experimental results? Amendments: In benchmark condition, we did not alter or change anything on the system. This includes tracking error occurrences, i.e., tracking failure allowed in benchmark conditions. This is now highlighted in the discussion section: “We implemented the early warning method for these 3 hand tracking error conditions, and to show its effectiveness, we compared the results with a benchmark condition, where no hand tracking errors are simulated, and feedback off condition, where we simulated the errors but did not display visual feedback. In the early warning method, when a high error risk for one or more hand tracking failures was detected, we warned the users with visual feedback.” We did not have any tracking errors since the hand tracking systems occasionally fail to detect hand movements in VR. R2: Where does the conclusion in L650 come from? From Fig. 14 and 15? But from these two figures, it can be seen that when feedback is turned on, both Task 1 and Task 2 show a significant decrease in TT. The conclusion in L650 comes from Figure 15 and Figure 16 (the numbers of Figure 14 and Figure 15 are now changed to Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively). In Figure 15, we found significant differences between error types, i.e., (Low-Intensity Light – Out of Vision Hands), (Low-Intensity Light – Self Occlusion), and (Out of Vision Hands – Self Occlusion). There is no significant difference between Feedback ON and OFF on Fig. 15. On the other hand, we found a significant difference in Figure 16 (a) between Feedback ON and OFF conditions. The figure numbers are now clearly indicated in the discussion section. R2: In L175, L177, it seems that references to figures should be enclosed in parentheses like in L189, L256, L260, etc. Amendments: The ‘figures’ references in L175 and L177 are enclosed in parentheses. R2: The 'conclusion' in L729 seems to be 'occlusion'. Amendments: We thank the reviewer for their comment. We fixed this typo. Again, we would like to thank you and the reviewers for their valuable time and comments. We hope our edits meet PlosOne’s high publication standards. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323796.r003
Decision Letter - Ziyu Qi, Editor PONE-D-25-05813R1Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in Virtual RealityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gemici, 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 only continue to address Reviewer 1's concerns. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 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, Ziyu Qi Academic 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: Please only continue to address Reviewer 1's concerns. [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 #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: 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 #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: The authors of the manuscript entitled "Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in Virtual Reality" checked the comments of reviewers carefully and addressed the revised parts in the text completely. The Figure 1 added to text truly but it needs modification at all because it is one of the most important figures of the article. The steps are different in context and content so the colors of the boxes must be different. The steps must be connected to each other with arrows not lines. The size of the boxes must be smaller to have a better graphical design. The texts in the boxes must be about "what the authors done in that step?". All the texts should imply an activity i.e.: - "Implementing Statistical Data Analysis Tests" not "Statistical Data Analysis Tests". - "Inference the recommendations and write the conclusion" not "Conclusion and Recommendations". The other sections of the manuscript meets journal standards scientifically. Therefore the manuscript requires minor revision again. Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed all the reviewers' comments and have additionally corrected several errors that were not previously identified. After a comprehensive evaluation of the revised manuscript in light of the publication criteria, I believe that the current version is acceptable for publication now. ****** 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: Yes: Ali Chegini 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.0323796.r004
Revision 2
8 Apr 2025 Author Response Dear Coordinator, We thank you and both reviewers for their comments. We made the following changes based on the R1 review: The Figure 1 added to text truly but it needs modification at all because it is one of the most important figures of the article. The steps are different in context and content so the colors of the boxes must be different. The steps must be connected to each other with arrows not lines. The size of the boxes must be smaller to have a better graphical design. The texts in the boxes must be about "what the authors done in that step?". All the texts should imply an activity i.e.: - "Implementing Statistical Data Analysis Tests" not "Statistical Data Analysis Tests". - "Inference the recommendations and write the conclusion" not "Conclusion and Recommendations". * We grouped the boxes and applied a color-blind-friendly palette. Now, in Figure 1, green represents the literature review, blue task implementation, orange feedback design, pink user study and data analysis, and red discussion and conclusion. * Each step now is connected to each other with arrows. * We re-sized the boxes to have a better graphical design. * We edited the text to emphasize an activity, as suggested by the reviewer. We hope that these changes meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. Kind regards Mucahit Gemici Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323796.r005
Decision Letter - Ziyu Qi, Editor Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in Virtual Reality PONE-D-25-05813R2 Dear Dr. Gemici, 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, Ziyu Qi 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 ****** 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: The Manuscript entitled "Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in Virtual Reality" has been reviewed two times so far. The authors considered the reviewer's comments totally. Now the manuscript has enough merit to publish in PLOS ONE Journal. ****** 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: Yes: Ali Chegini ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323796.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ziyu Qi, Editor PONE-D-25-05813R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gemici, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Mr. Ziyu Qi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323796.r007

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 .