Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 30, 2024
Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor

PONE-D-24-54464Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Mar 14 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,

Nick Fogt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

“Funding

Dongxu Gao and Tinggangyuan

China Institute of Sport Science Basic Scientific Research Business Funding Project,(Basic 23-39)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“The authors have stated that there is no competing interest.”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

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

6. We note that Figures 3 and 5 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

Additional Editor Comments:

My apologies for the delay in looking for reviewers for this paper.

Prior to sending for review, I am requesting that the authors please fix the formatting of the references. The formatting of the references is highly variable, and there is at least one duplicate.

As soon as this is corrected, I will begin the process of finding reviewers.

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

[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.

Revision 1

PONE-D-24-54464R1: PLOS ONER1

Title: Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth Analysis

Article Type: Research Article

Dear Editor

Response to the review comments:

Thank you for the useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have included required information and revised the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below:

Response to comments by Academic Editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We have rechecked and corrected the mistakes as suggestion given.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Funding Dongxu Gao and Tinggangyuan China Institute of Sport Science Basic Scientific Research Business Funding Project,(Basic 23-39)” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

"We have added the funding information as suggestion given”

{Please refer to highlights in the cover letter]

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

“The authors have stated that there is no competing interest.” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

"We have added the competing interest information as suggestion given”

{Please refer to highlights in the cover letter]

4. 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.

“The corresponding author has added ORCID in the submission account as suggestion given.”

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

We have included captions for supporting information files at the end of the manuscript as suggested.

[Please refer to highlights at the end of the manuscript]

6. We note that Figures 3 and 5 includes an image of participants.

We have covered the identifiable parts of the study participants in figure 3 and 5.

[Please refer to figure 3 and figure 5]

Sincerely

Yang Wu

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor

PONE-D-24-54464R1Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Mar 31 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,

Nick Fogt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The references still are not uniform. Please follow the instructions to authors in uniformly formatting all of the references. I won't be able to look for reviewers until this matter is resolved.

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

[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.

Revision 2

PONE-D-24-54464R2: PLOS ONER2

Title: Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth Analysis

Short title: Motor Visual Skills and Performance in Elite Skeet Shooters

Article Type: Research Article

Dear Editor

Response to the review comments:

Thank you for the useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have included required information and revised the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below:

Response to comments by Academic Editor:

1. The references still are not uniform. Please follow the instructions to authors in uniformly formatting all of the references. I won't be able to look for reviewers until this matter is resolved.

Dear editor, thank you for your feedback on references. We have rechecked and amended the entire references and citations based on the instructions to authors as suggested.

[Please refer to highlights in the reference section]

2. Please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool.

We have uploaded all figures to PACE tool, all figures were improved accordingly.

Sincerely

Yang Wu

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx
Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor

PONE-D-24-54464R2Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Jun 11 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,

Nick Fogt

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:

Both reviewers have positive things to say about the paper.

Please comment on reviewer #1's comments regarding the statistical analysis. While the overall r squared value is quite good, the correlation coefficients between various tests are somewhat low. Please comment on the implications of these lower correlations. Reviewer #1 also asks for some details around the aSee glasses. Presumably these glasses are independent from the Senaptec system. If the aSee glasses are not related to the Senaptec system please indicate that this is the case. Please provide the manufacturer of the aSee system, the resolution (which looks like 0.50deg from the company website (https://www.7invensun.com/elite)) and if known, the accuracy of this eye tracking system.

[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: N/A

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: I think that the paper is good but I don´t understand statistical about r because is relatively low. I like senaptec system but I don't see the relation with Asee glasses, Can you explain a little more?

Reviewer #2: The text presents a detailed analysis of the importance of visual capabilities in shooting performance. It is clear that faster occurrence times and better cooperative insight are crucial for superior performance. The negative correlation between occurrence times and performance highlights that slower occurrence times are relevant to athletes, emphasizing the need to focus on developing these skills. Furthermore, the regression model that explains 76.7% of the variance in expert performance suggests that visual predictors are substantial for success in sport. The conclusion reaffirms the importance of perceived breadth and specialized skills, ensuring that training in these aspects can bring significant improvements in competitors' performance.

So congratulations to the authors.

**********

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:  Ricardo Bernárdez-Vilaboa

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.

Revision 3

PONE-D-24-54464R2: PLOS ONER3

Title: Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth Analysis

Short title: Motor Visual Skills and Performance in Elite Skeet Shooters

Article Type: Research Article

Dear Editor

Response to the review comments

Thank you for the useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have included the required information and revised the manuscript accordingly, and a point-by-point response to review questions is listed below:

Response to journal requirements

1. 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 in the manuscript text or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. The rebuttal letter should mention any changes to the reference list that accompany your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have checked all references for retraction and completeness, and no retracted articles were identified on the list. All references are currently valid as per Retraction Watch and PubMed checks. We have also replaced some blogs and duplicate references with recent empirical studies.

Response to comments by Academic Editor

1. Please comment on reviewer #1's comments regarding the statistical analysis. While the overall r-squared value is quite good, the correlation coefficients between various tests are somewhat low. Please comment on the implications of these lower correlations. Reviewer #1 also asks for some details about the aSee glasses. Presumably, these glasses are independent of the Senaptec system. If the aSee glasses are not related to the Senaptec system, please indicate this.

Response: Dear editor, Thank you for your overall feedback. We have addressed reviewer 1's comments. The detailed point-by-point response is mentioned under response to reviewer 1 comments below and highlighted in the method, results, and discussion section of the manuscript.

2. Please provide the manufacturer of the aSee system, the resolution (which looks like 0.50deg from the company website (https://www.7invensun.com/elite)), and, if known, the accuracy of this eye tracking system.

Response: Thank you for requesting specification details. We have addressed this comment and provided the details regarding the aSee eye-tracking system, as suggested.

Please refer to highlights in the method section of the manuscript where we have addressed this comment.

[…The specialized visual ability test utilized the aSee Glasses (7INVENSUN, Beijing, China), a spectacle-type eye-tracking device with a resolution of 0.50° and an accuracy of 0.5°–1.0°. The system’s high-frequency sampling rate (120 Hz) and precision make it suitable for capturing dynamic gaze behaviors in sport-specific scenarios….]

Response to comments by Reviewer #1

1. I don't understand statistics about r because it is relatively low.

Response: Thank you for this insightful clarification question and comments. While the correlation coefficients (r-values) reported in our study (e.g., 𝑟 =0.486 for Perceived Range) may appear modest, they are consistent with findings in sports science and human performance research, where multifactorial influences (e.g., psychological, physiological, environmental) often result a significant effect on performanes. Even moderate correlations (e.g., r=0.3–0.5) are meaningful in such contexts, reflecting measurable and actionable relationships between variables. For example, r=0.486 (Perceived Range vs. performance) explains ~23.6% of the variance (𝑅2 =0.237), which is substantial in elite athlete populations where marginal gains are critical.

[Please refer to highlights in the discussion part where we have addressed this comment]

2. I like the Senaptec system but do not see the relation with aSee Glasses. Can you explain a little more?

Response: The Senaptec system assesses basic motor visual abilities (e.g., visual clarity, depth perception, reaction time) under controlled conditions, providing foundational metrics of athletes’ visual hardware. In contrast, the aSee Glasses evaluate specialized visual abilities (e.g., gaze patterns, target tracking, decision-making) during dynamic, sport-specific tasks, reflecting how athletes apply these foundational skills in ecologically valid scenarios. Together, they provide a comprehensive evaluation: Senaptec identifies baseline visual capabilities, while aSee Glasses reveals how these capabilities translate to performance under competition-like demands.

[Please refer to the highlights in the materials and method section where we explained this comment.]

Sincerely

Yang Wu

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx
Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor

Exploring the Relationship between Motor Visual Proficiency and Performance Metrics in Elite Skeet Shooters: An In-depth Analysis

PONE-D-24-54464R3

Dear Dr. Wu,

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,

Nick Fogt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your responses to the reviewer comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor

PONE-D-24-54464R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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

Dr. Nick Fogt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .