PONE-D-25-05017Development of a new method to promote tooth extraction socket healing through immediate transplantation of extracted dental pulp tissuePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tokuyama-Toda,

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 Apr 13 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,

Carlos Alberto Antunes Viegas, DVM; MSc; 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

7. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[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: No

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: Manuscript Title: Development of a new method to promote tooth extraction socket healing through immediate transplantation of extracted dental pulp tissue

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-05017

Journal: PLOS ONE

________________________________________

Comments to authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for possible publication in PLOS ONE. This study explores a novel approach to promoting extraction socket healing through the immediate transplantation of dental pulp tissue. The topic is innovative and relevant to regenerative dentistry. However, major revisions are needed, particularly in methodological clarity and the presentation of results. Please find my detailed comments below.

Specific Comments

Abstract

● Avoid first-person language. Instead of “we investigated”, I suggest rephrasing as “this study aimed to investigate”. According to the journal’s guidelines, the abstract should explicitly describe the main objectives of the study. Please include this crucial information.

● Include numerical results.

Introduction

● Lines 45-49: For better readability, I suggest numbering the healing phases as (1); (2); etc.

● Line 51: Post-extraction discomfort is primarily linked to the inflammatory response rather than the complete formation of new bone. Please provide references to support the statement that discomfort persists until bone formation is complete or rephrase this paragraph.

● Line 52: "When a wisdom tooth is extracted, quality of life (QOL) is significantly reduced due to the location and size of the defective tooth." → Please provide references to support this claim.

● Line 53: This sentence is repetitive. I suggest removing it.

Methods

● Line 81: Specify the total number of rats used in the study.

● There is no information on the operators and data analyzers—were they calibrated? Were the procedures performed by experienced researchers?

● Was a sample size calculation performed to justify n = 5 at each time point?

● Provide references supporting the image measurement methodology—are there similar studies using this approach?

● When describing the data collection process, specify how animal suffering was minimized, including euthanasia and medications.

● Provide more details on how the radiopaque area was measured.

● The methodology section should explicitly describe how measurements were taken.

Results

● Report numerical results instead of general descriptions.

● Ensure that descriptions of measurement procedures appear only in the Methods section, not in the Results.

Discussion (Lines 145-147)

● The authors should emphasize their own results while comparing them to previous studies. For example, compare histological and imaging results with findings from other regenerative therapy investigations.

● Line 249: Instead of stating your future research plans, rephrase your sentences as suggestions for future studies.

Conclusion

● Line 267: The final sentence is unnecessary. Instead of stating future plans, rephrase them as suggestions for future research in the discussion section, particularly after stating the study limitations.

________________________________________

Additional Points

● The manuscript should be better structured to ensure information is appropriately categorized within the correct sections.

● The Results section should only present findings without interpretation—interpretative analysis belongs in the Discussion.

● Instead of stating "data not shown," consider creating a table to present numerical results, comparing both groups across different time points.

● Figure legends should be descriptive and concise, avoiding interpretation, which should be reserved for the Discussion.

Final Recommendation

The manuscript needs revisions to improve methodological clarity, structure, and overall writing. Major points to address include:

1. Providing missing numerical results in the Results section.

2. Revising the structure so that Methods, Results, and Discussion are properly divided.

○ According to the journal’s guidelines, separating Results, Discussion, and Conclusion is optional. However, since the authors have chosen to present them as distinct sections, each one should be written accordingly.

○ The Results section must present findings only, while the Discussion should summarize the main findings and compare them with existing literature.

3. Improving methodological transparency by detailing sample size calculations, operator calibration, and measurement protocols. The methods should be replicable.

4. Editing for clarity to ensure the writing is precise, concise, and professional.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I evaluated the article titled "Development of a new method to promote tooth extraction socket healing through immediate transplantation of extracted dental pulp tissue”. Its goal was to invvestigate “the possibility of promoting tooth extraction socket healing by extracting dental pulp tissue from extracted teeth that would normally be discarded and transplanting it immediately into the socket.”

I considered that this study has no novelty. Therefore, it is interesting and can aggregate data to the literature. Moreover, it is contributing to the regenerative medicine area.

Comments per section:

TITLE: I suggest to include “An in vitro study”

ABSTRACT:

- remove personal pronouns

REFERENCES: this section is outdated. Only 24% of the references were published in the last 5 years. Update the literature (suggestions sent below)

INTRO

- for the first phrase (Ln.. 42-43) “Tooth extraction is one of the most prevalent surgical procedures in clinical oral surgery”, I suggest to include refs.

(new ref.) Effects of ozone therapy on postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus caused by surgical extraction of unerupted lower third molars: a double-blinded split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2025. doi:10.4317/medoral.26974

(new ref.) Evaluating the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2024. doi:10.4317/medoral.26894

- Ln 49-52: the refs. above can be used in these lines too.

- Ln 60-61: “and it has been reported that stem cells also exist in human dental pulp tissue [11-13].” I suggest to include the article below here.

(new ref.) The influence of Aloe vera with mesenchymal stem cells from dental pulp on bone regeneration: characterization and treatment of non-critical defects of the tibia in rats. Journal of Applied Oral Science, v. 27, p. 1-11, 2019. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0103

M&M

- why the authors did not present a morphometrical analysis?

- how many authors participated of the image analysis?

RESULTS: there was subjective description of the histologic pieces analyzed. It could be presented with numbers to corroborate the micro-CT results.

DISCUSSION: please adjust the discussion present paragraphs.

Form Ln218 to Ln238, no one reference… part of the results section was presented. Add refs.

CONCLUSION: please revise the conclusion. The procedure is not simple and inexpensive.

Ln 265-266: The results suggest that immediate transplantation of dental pulp tissue into tooth extraction sockets can be a simple, safe, and inexpensive method

**********

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: Yes:  Gabriel Magrin

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.

PONE-D-25-05017R1Development of a new method to promote tooth extraction socket healing through immediate transplantation of extracted dental pulp tissuePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tokuyama-Toda,

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 May 08 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,

Carlos Alberto Antunes Viegas, DVM; MSc; PhD

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.

[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: Partly

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: No

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: Manuscript Title: Development of a new method to promote tooth extraction socket healing through immediate transplantation of extracted dental pulp tissue

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-05017

Journal: PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for carefully considering my previous comments and suggestions. Your manuscript has improved significantly. Below, I provide additional comments for further refinement.

Abstract

● Lines 22-27: Some parts remain repetitive; consider revising for conciseness.

● When stating your results, clarify whether the observed increases were significantly different between groups.

Materials and Methods

● Line 119: "Two groups based on variations in the radiopaque area." Please specify the unit of measurement for clarity.

● Mentioning the third author: If identifying them in the text, please do so by initials rather than by general mention.

Results

● I still believe it would be beneficial to include a table presenting the numerical results (volume of the radiopaque area and rate of change) for both groups across different time points. Additionally, indicate whether the differences were statistically significant.

● Lines 188-190, 210: Past tense is more appropriate for the Methods section; consider rephrasing. For example, in the Results section, you can say:

"Changes in the radiopaque area compared between the two groups are presented in Fig. 2."

Discussion

● Line 321: You mention that "Numerous studies have been reported on promoting healing in tooth extraction." Have any of these studies used micro-CT and histology to evaluate assisted socket healing? If so, how do their results compare to yours? This would also be an opportunity to compare your numerical results with similar studies.

● Lines 345, 350: Avoid using first-person language; revise accordingly.

Conclusion

● The conclusion should answer the study’s main objective rather than introduce new information, similar to your conclusion in the abstract.

● Lines 355-356: "Compared to conventional regenerative medicine using stem cells obtained through..." This statement is not supported by your study, as you did not compare pulp transplantation to other regenerative therapies. Consider rewording or removing this part.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Thank you so much for your responses and adjustments.

Congratulations from my end.

Best regards.

**********

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:  Gabriel Magrin

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: Comments to authors - revised manuscript.docx

Development of a new method to promote tooth extraction socket healing through immediate transplantation of extracted dental pulp tissue

PONE-D-25-05017R2

Dear Dr. Reiko Tokuyama-Toda,

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,

Carlos Alberto Antunes Viegas, DVM; MSc; 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

**********

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: Dear authors,

I would like to thank the authors for addressing the suggestions and comments provided in the previous review. After reading the revised version of the manuscript, I am satisfied that the changes have been implemented, significantly improving the quality of the work. In its current form, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

**********

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:  Gabriel Magrin

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to authors.docx