PONE-D-24-59115Can Anthropomorphic Design in Beverage Packaging Enhance Impulse Buying Intention? Amazing Visual and Verbal Cues!PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tian,

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.

Editor's comments:

==============================

Since our expert reviewers recognize the merits of your work, I am willing to provide an opportunity for revision. Please carefully consider the reviewers' comments and address each concern systematically and in detail.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 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,

Simon Dang

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 a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Please provide the Questionnaires used in this study.

5. We note that Appendix 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 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.

6. 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.

[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: Partly

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: 1. This research contains too many simple and isolated sentences, which might cause boredom and confusions to the readers. Below are just examples. The author should proofread the whole manuscript:

“…This involves assigning human traits to non-human objects. Such design creates human-like appearances or behaviors. It aims to evoke emotional resonance in consumers. This strategy is widely used in marketing. It boosts product appeal and fosters consumer engagement….”

“Trust is another key mechanism. It reduces perceived risk. Trust enhances product credibility and reliability. This increases consumer trust and purchase likelihood. Empathy is defined as the ability to understand and share others’ emotions”

2. It is unclear about the context of this study. Is the impulse buying intention in a physical setting/m-commerce/website/banner ads, etc.? This needs to be explained in more detailed.

3. Line 61: anthropomorphic packaging was mentioned, however, it was not explicitly explained what is meant by anthropomorphic packaging. In addition, there are many weak supporting evidence. For example, it was stated that “sales surged by 4,600%”, is it merely due to anthropomorphic packaging? Are there any other factors, e.g. high brand awareness due to investment in ads, or promotion?. If the “surge” is in conjunction with many other factors, then these evidence are not strong enough to conclude that “These data suggest that anthropomorphic design in packaging significantly enhances consumers’ emotional identification and purchase intentions”

4. Line 74: There are many weak arguments, for example “whether anthropomorphic language styles influence consumer behavior through psychological mechanisms such as social presence, positive emotions, and empathy remains insufficiently explored.” Actually, there have been many research on anthropomorphic language styles and social presence. There are just a few references in the introduction.

5. Line 122: The author stated that “Anthropomorphic beverage packaging, which assigns human traits to products…”. However, the first hyperlink (DIGITALING) in line 61 shows photos of fruits (e.g. banana and strawberry) and animals (e.g. cat). The definition is not actually consistent to examples given. This will cause confusions to readers.

6. Line 164: The author has immediately switched from Concept of Impulse Buying Intention to SOR. It is important to create a reading flow for readers. In addition, the author needs to justify how SOR framework is applicable in the context of Impulse Buying Intention. Furthermore, SOR model should be explained in greater details.

7. In regards with questionnaires used in this research, all questions for Social presence are about human-likeness, which is the same as anthropomorphism. Therefore, it is very difficult to come up with a sound analysis. In addition, in table 1, sources of questionnaire measurement items were provided, however, it is unclear which one the author has adapted because the author has provided at least 2 sources for 1 construct. Take a look at reference 64, 5 items for social presence are much different from the items used in this research. This might be due to poor application of back-translating technique, leading to inaccurate analyses and findings.

8. Line 454: it is unclear if the author conducted an experimental research, or a Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.

9. Marker variable test for common method bias check was missing.

10. Headings were not appropriately deployed, for example, Line 847

11. Control variables in the research model and analysis were missing.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for lending me this opportunity to read this paper. It is insightful and generally well-argued. However, I have several major considerations and suggestions:

1. In my opinion, one of the most fundamental weaknesses in this manuscript is the lack of coherence in the theoretical model. While the authors discussed each path between variables and cite theories to justify individual relationships, the model feels fragmented rather than conceptually unified. It appears as though the mediators (social presence, positive emotions, and empathy) were selected based on convenience rather than a systematic theoretical rationale. This raises a critical concern: Why were these three specific mediators chosen over other potential psychological mechanisms? Currently, the model lacks theoretical integrity such that it feels piecemeal rather than cohesive. The authors cited theoretical justifications for individual pathways, but they did not justify why these mediators should be examined together within the same framework. This suggests that the authors may not have considered how these mediators interact or why they are the most important psychological mechanisms in this context.

As currently presented, positive emotions, social presence, and empathy are conceptually distinct and do not seem to align under a single unifying theme. Therefore, I would suggest the authors to find a way to clearly demonstrate why these variables collectively form the most appropriate psychological mechanisms through which anthropomorphic design influences impulse buying intention. In other words, the authors are suggested to integrate these variables into a coherent framework and explain it clearly in the literature review. For example, the authors may think of categorizing mediators into one or more broader constructs that can align with each other under a single theme. Alternatively, if the authors want to maintain them as distinct variables, they should explain how these three mediators complement each other rather than operating in isolation.

2. In the current version of this paper, moreover, loneliness was treated as a moderator without adequate theoretical grounding. The choice of loneliness as a moderator lacks a compelling justification beyond speculative reasoning. The paper assumes that lonely consumers will respond more strongly to anthropomorphic packaging, but it does not explain why loneliness is the most relevant moderator over other psychological states. Ideally, a good and appropriate moderator should not deviate dramatically from the focal point of the main model/research context. Conceptually, it should be closely linked with IVs and (or) outcome variables. However, I cannot see why loneliness fits in this paper. Moreover, the proposed moderating effect of loneliness (i.e. the effects of anthropomorphic design will be stronger for high-loneliness consumers) is too obvious. Please do not get me wrong here – While intuitive insights can be valuable, readers may question whether this research is actually uncovering new consumer insights or simply confirming common sense. If a moderator’s effect is overly self-evident, it diminishes the contribution of the study because it does not challenge or refine existing theoretical perspectives.

Therefore, if the authors wish to retain loneliness as the moderator, I suggest (1) Explaining clearly why loneliness is the most relevant psychological state/moderator that need to be considered in this research; (2) refining the argument to introduce theoretical complexity in hypotheses development; and (3) Considering testing an additional moderator to strengthen the study’s robustness.

3. The study surveyed 308 beverage consumers in Shenzhen, yet the authors do not provide any justification for why Shenzhen is an appropriate market for this study. This is a critical omission because market characteristics (e.g., consumer demographics, cultural tendencies, purchasing behaviours) can significantly influence the results. Without this justification, it is unclear whether the findings can be generalized to other markets or if Shenzhen represents a unique consumer group.

Additionally, the manuscript did not specify how the sample was recruited. Was it through random sampling, convenience sampling, or quota sampling? The lack of transparency in sampling methodology raises concerns about potential selection bias, which could impact the study’s validity.

The authors also need to justify why a sample size of 308 is appropriate for this study. Given that the proposed model consists of seven constructs, a larger sample would typically be expected to ensure adequate statistical power and model stability in SEM. It would be useful for the authors to conduct and report a power analysis to determine whether 308 responses provide sufficient power to detect meaningful effects.

Lastly, the manuscript misuses the term "experimental results" when describing its findings. Since the study is purely survey-based without an experimental design (i.e. there are no control vs. treatment groups), the term “experimental” is misleading and should be replaced with more appropriate terminology such as “survey findings” or “empirical results” to avoid confusion.

4. While the methodological section is generally solid, the authors failed to test for common method variance, which is a significant concern in survey-based research. To address this, the authors need to include a formal test for CMV, using Marker variable / ULMC / other methods. Please note that Harman’s single-factor test is insufficient and should not be used.

5. The authors did not mention whether control variables were included in the analysis, yet several key consumer characteristics are likely to influence impulse buying behaviours. Specifically, brand familiarity, product experiences, and prior purchasing behaviours are known to have strong effects on consumer decision-making. Without controlling for these factors, the authors risked overestimating the effect of anthropomorphic design because the observed relationships could be partially explained by consumers' pre-existing attitudes / experiences. If control variables were included, the authors need to explicitly state which ones were used, how they were measured, and how they influenced the results. If no control variables were included, the authors must provide a strong justification for why they were omitted and acknowledge this as a limitation.

6. I found that many sections (especially in Theoretical development, Hypotheses, and Results discussion) repeated the same points multiple times. Please streamline the manuscript to remove redundancy. It also seems that the authors put too much emphasis on discussing concepts and theories (e.g., trust, Self-congruity theory, etc.) that irrelevant to the focal points of this research. If I were wrong about this, then please clearly explain how they related to this research. Otherwise, please reduce these discussions which may distract readers. In my opinion, the implications are generic and lack depth. The study concludes that anthropomorphic design can enhance impulse buying, but it fails to translate these findings into concrete marketing strategies that beverage companies can use. Please find a way to strengthen the practical implications, focusing on how beverage companies should specifically implement anthropomorphic design strategies.

I hope you find my suggestions useful. Good luck with your research!

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-59115R1Can Anthropomorphic Design in Beverage Packaging Enhance Impulse Buying Intention? Amazing Visual and Verbal Cues!PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tian,

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.

Editor's comments:

==============================

One of the reviewers still has minor concerns that require your attention. Therefore, I invite you to address what is left on the table. I look forward to receiving your revision.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 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,

Simon Dang, Ph.D.

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: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

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 have no further comments on this version, and I wish you all the best with your publication and ongoing research.

Reviewer #2: The authors have made great efforts to revise the paper as such the quality of the paper has been dramatically improved. I just have one concern:

While the authors stated that they examined the CMV using ULMC method, I did not find the results in the manuscript. While the authors claimed that the results can be found in Lines 647 – 781, I still could not find them. Please follow the following approach to test CMV via ULMC and provide results in a table: Comparing the model fit indices such as CMIN/df, CFI, GFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR of the (1) measurement model, (2) measurement model with a ULMC, and (3) model with all items under 1 construct.

Good luck!

**********

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: Trong Huu Nguyen

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.

Can Anthropomorphic Design in Beverage Packaging Enhance Impulse Buying Intention? Amazing Visual and Verbal Cues!

PONE-D-24-59115R2

Dear Dr. Tian,

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,

Simon Dang, Ph.D.

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: All my comments have been addressed. In this case I have no further concerns and recommend 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 #2: No

**********