Research on urban resilience assessment and driving forces based on Production-Living-Ecological Spaces: A case study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area in China

Honglin Liu; Junjie Zhu; Ziming He

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326770

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 5, 2024
Decision Letter - Babak Aslani, Editor Dear Dr. Liu, Please carefully review the paper based on the reviewers' comments and make sure that your study is correctly related to the previous literature Please clearly highlight your contribution and make sure that acknowledge the relevant literature to identify the gaps Please carefully revise the whole manuscript to make sure that all the required information is provided and the text is clear to the readers (please refer to the reviewers' comments for more detail) 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. 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, Babak Aslani, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://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. We note that Figures 2, 4, 5 and 6 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 4, 5 and 6 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear authors, I have read your manuscript and I found the quantitative spatiotemporal approach to study resilience interesting. It is true that there is not much research on spatiotemporal changes of urban resilience. However, your manuscript needs to provide a better description of the resilience properties and to link your results with them. I have prepared a list comments to help the revision process. 1) Abstract: “The geographical agglomeration impact is studied using the ArcGIS spatial approach.” I think you can write better here the methodology because ArcGIS is just a software. 2) Introduction: from line 34-38, I think that citing just a policy plan of a country without discussing its (scientifically studied) implications lacks meaningful insights. 3) Line 54-62, I know there are many more works about resilience studies in scientific literature. Please, report more of them by doing a more accurate literature review. 4) Lines 71-72, the sentence is not clear. What do you mean by dimensional investigations at the geographical level? 5) Your analysis of the interactions of three spatial subsystems over time is linked to this previous study on the multidimensional spatial analyses of urban resilience over years “Casali, Y., Aydin, N. Y., & Comes, T. (2024). A data-driven approach to analyse the co-evolution of urban systems through a resilience lens: A Helsinki case study. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 51(9), 2074-2091. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241235246” 6) Line 139: can you add the year of the beginning and end of the Three Gorges Project? This helps to have a temporal reference. 7) 160: “the mean filling method”. Do you take the average of what exactly (spatial mean constrained on an area or the mean of all data points?) Moreover, can you report the percentage of missing data you filled? 8) 182-183: “The production area is more resilient to the effects of hazards when it has superior economic efficiency and an industrial structure that makes more sense.” Please, can you explain this sentence better? What does it mean in this sentence “that makes more sense”? Do you mean that production areas are more rich and so they can rebuild and adapt after crisis easier? Please, consider to provide evidences of this (e.g. previous studies). 9) Section 2.3.2: please, discuss this section by using previous published studies on urban resilience. I think that you should better link your ideas with definitions of urban resilience already discussed in published scientific studies. 10) Lines 211-213: why do you select those aspects precisely? Please, write in the manuscript the rationale. 11) Equations 1 and 2: like they are written now, they create confusion. If you want to take the positive value, there is the absolute value operator (modulus) in mathematics. Moreover, specify why you select only the positive values. 12) 277-279: Please, avoid describing a method as “effective” but rather cite the reference to studies defining it and describe the calculation. 13) Please, write the reasons why you selected Moran’s I. 14) Line 359: TYPO 15) Tables: you can approximate the numbers with fewer decimal units for better clarity. 16) When presenting and discussing the results, I think it lacks more discussion with resilience properties. You report well how results increases or dicreases, but I think that your results should link more back to the resilience theories, explaining what the results mean according to urban resilience. 17) Moreover, I think you relate little your results with previously published studies in resilience in the discussion and conclusion. How do your results contribute to the urban resilience literature? Reviewer #2: 1.Title has to be slightly modified 2.Study Objectives must be cleared in Abstract and Introduction. 3. Since the study is space concept that focus on the location, territory in these three areas Production, Living and Ecological. 4. All the Figures and Tables have reflected relevant meaning. 5. No Citation Problem in the manuscript. 6. Remove the word Article because it is a manuscript under review and publication process. 7. Take care of editorial corrections ****** 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: Yes: Senapathy Marisennayya ******** [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: R.Report PONE PLE Spaces 24.1.25.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326770.r001
Revision 1
13 Mar 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1 Dear Reviewer #1, Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing such detailed feedback. We greatly value your comments, which will significantly help us improve the quality of the paper. Below are our responses to each of your comments, along with the corresponding revisions: 1) Abstract: “The geographical agglomeration impact is studied using the ArcGIS spatial approach.” I think you can write better here the methodology because ArcGIS is just a software. Response: Abstract: We have revised the abstract to more clearly describe the methodology. Instead of just mentioning ArcGIS, we now specifically state the spatial analysis techniques used, such as the Jenks natural breaks method and spatial autocorrelation analysis, to more accurately demonstrate our research methods. 2) Introduction: from line 34-38, I think that citing just a policy plan of a country without discussing its (scientifically studied) implications lacks meaningful insights. Response: Introduction: from line 35-40, We have expanded the discussion of the cited policy plans and added references to research on the effects of international policy plans in other regions to provide more meaningful insights. 3) Line 54-62, I know there are many more works about resilience studies in scientific literature. Please, report more of them by doing a more accurate literature review. Response: line 65-75, A more comprehensive literature review has been conducted. We have added relevant studies to support our arguments and reorganized the literature review section to better reflect the current state of research and its relevance to our study. 4) Lines 71-72, the sentence is not clear. What do you mean by dimensional investigations at the geographical level? Response: lines 84-86, We have clarified the term "geographical-level dimension investigation" (hyphen added), explaining that it refers to the study of different geographical regions. 5) Your analysis of the interactions of three spatial subsystems over time is linked to this previous study on the multidimensional spatial analyses of urban resilience over years “Casali, Y., Aydin, N. Y., & Comes, T. (2024) A data-driven approach to analyze the co-evolution of urban systems through a resilience lens: A Helsinki case study. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 51(9), 2074-2091. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241235246” Response: We have added a citation of the study by Casali et al. (2024) and discussed its relevance to our research. We also briefly compared our methods and findings with those of Casali et al. to highlight the contributions of our study. 6) Line 139: can you add the year of the beginning and end of the Three Gorges Project? This helps to have a temporal reference. Response: line 155-158, The specific start and completion years of the Three Gorges Project have been added to provide a clear time reference. 7) 160: “the mean filling method”. Do you take the average of what exactly (spatial mean constrained on an area or the mean of all data points?) Moreover, can you report the percentage of missing data you filled ? Response: line 179-181, We have clarified that the mean-value filling method (hyphen added) involves calculating the spatial meaning of data points. Additionally, the percentage of missing data filled using this method has been reported. 8) 182-183: “The production area is more resilient to the effects of hazards when it has superior economic efficiency and an industrial structure that makes more sense.” Please, can you explain this sentence better? What does it mean in this sentence “that makes more sense”? Do you mean that production areas are more rich and so they can rebuild and adapt after crisis easier? Please, consider to provide evidences of this (e.g. previous studies) Response: line 201-203, We have rephrased the sentence to clarify that "more meaningful industrial structure" refers to a more diversified and efficient industrial structure. Evidence from previous studies has also been provided to support the view that such a structure enhances resilience. 9) Section 2.3.2: please, discuss this section by using previous published studies on urban resilience. I think that you should better link your ideas with definitions of urban resilience already discussed in published scientific studies. Response: Section 2.3.2, The discussion in this section has been expanded, with more references to studies on urban resilience. Our views are now better connected to the definitions of urban resilience discussed in published scientific research. 10) Lines 211-213: why do you select those aspects precisely? Please, write in the manuscript the rationale. Response: line 218-223, We have detailed the reasons for choosing these specific aspects in the manuscript, explaining their relevance to the research objectives and the study area’s context. 11) Equations 1 and 2: like they are written now, they create confusion. If you want to take the positive value, there is the absolute value operator (modulus) in mathematics. Moreover, specify why you select only the positive values. Response: Equations 1 and 2: The reasons for using only positive values are as follows: a) Data standardization: Due to the heterogeneity of data measurements, a large volume of data, and inconsistent units, direct calculation is impossible. b) Simplified calculations: Positive values simplify the process, avoiding complexity from negative numbers. c) Highlighting differences: Mapping data to a 0-1 range clarifies relative differences. d) Entropy method requirements: The entropy method requires non-negative data to reflect information dispersion. 12) 277-279: Please, avoid describing a method as “effective” but rather cite the reference to studies defining it and describe the calculation. Response: line 299-301, We avoided describing the method as "effective" and instead cited prior studies. 13) Please, write the reasons why you selected Moran’s I. Response: Moran’s I was used to quantify spatial autocorrelation of resilience in Three Gorges Reservoir Area counties. Key points: a) Spatial autocorrelation: Moran’s I measures clustering patterns (e.g., high-resilience or low-resilience areas) b) Interpretation: Values >0 indicate clustering of similar values; values <0 suggest dispersion. c) Methodology: The Jenks natural breaks method graded resilience indices, and spatial weight matrices (based on adjacency/distance) were incorporated. 14) Line 359: TYPO Response: The spelling error in line 381 has been corrected. 15) Tables: you can approximate the numbers with fewer decimal units for better clarity. Response: The data in the table have (corrected verb agreement) many decimal places to convey high-precision results. This reflects meticulous calculations and ensures even subtle differences are observable. 16) When presenting and discussing the results, I think it lacks more discussion with resilience properties. You report well how results increases or dicreases, but I think that your results should link more back to the resilience theories, explaining what the results mean according to urban resilience. Response: line557-606, We expanded the discussion of resilience attributes, linking results to resilience theory and emphasizing the significance of urban resilience outcomes. 17) Moreover, I think you relate little your results with previously published studies in resilience in the discussion and conclusion. How do your results contribute to the urban resilience literature? Response: line655-667, We better linked our results to published resilience studies, discussing contributions to the literature and implications for future research/practice. Thank you again for your constructive feedback. We believe these revisions significantly enhance the manuscript and welcome further suggestions to advance the publication process. Response to Reviewer #2 Dear Reviewer #2, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Your comments are highly instructive for improving the quality of our work. Below are our detailed responses to your suggestions: 1) Title has to be slightly modified Response: We revised the title to better reflect the research focus: "Research on County-City Resilience Assessment and Driving Forces Based on Production-Living-Ecological Spaces: A Case Study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area in China" (hyphens added for compound terms). 2) Study Objectives must be cleared in Abstract and Introduction. Response: The abstract has been reorganized to foreground the research purpose. We explicitly state that the study aims to explore location- and territory-related challenges in production, living, and ecological spaces and highlight its theoretical and practical contributions. 3) Since the study is space concept that focus on the location, territory in these three areas Production, Living and Ecological. Response: As a spatial-concept study, we strengthened discussions on location and territorial issues in production-living-ecology fields throughout the manuscript. 4) All the Figures and Tables have reflected relevant meaning. Response: All figures and tables now include clear titles and concise captions. Data were rechecked to ensure accuracy and relevance to the research theme, enhancing their role in supporting readers’ understanding. 5) No Citation Problem in the manuscript. Response: We verified all cited literature to ensure adherence to academic standards, proper formatting, and relevance to the research context. 6) Remove the word Article because it is a manuscript under review and publication process. Response: The term "article" was removed as suggested to align with standard manuscript terminology. 7) Take care of editorial corrections Response: We addressed editorial issues, including awkward phrasing, grammatical errors, and punctuation inconsistencies, to improve clarity, readability, and professionalism. Thank you again for your constructive feedback. We believe these revisions significantly enhance the manuscript and welcome further suggestions to advance the publication process. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326770.r002
Decision Letter - Babak Aslani, Editor Dear Dr. Liu, 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. ============================== Carefully revise the text of the manuscript to avoid any repeated terms and words Please also make sure to provide more insights and discuss the real-life implications of your study Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 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. 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 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, Babak Aslani, 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. Additional Editor Comments: The reviewers were positive about the revised version of the paper. However, they suggested some additional comments about the text and providing some more insight in the work. Please carefully follow their suggestions in this round of revision. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> 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 Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear authors, The manuscript improved from the previous version because you wrote more details on methods and discussion to resilience studies. I suggest a minor revision because I noticed you often repeat "resilience" in the same paragraph (see for example the Contribution section). Please, check once more the whole text and avoid repetitions. Instead of using "resilience", I suggest to give more insights about it. You can describe, for example, some dynamics and processes. ****** 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 ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326770.r003
Revision 2
17 May 2025 Author Response Dear academic editor and reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Your comments are highly instructive for improving the quality of our work. Below are our responses to each of your comments, along with the corresponding revisions: Response to the academic editor 1) Carefully revise the text of the manuscript to avoid any repeated terms and words. Response: We have carefully scrutinized the entire manuscript, deleted unnecessarily repetitive terms and words and retained traces of changes in the 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' file. 2) Please also make sure to provide more insights and discuss the real-life implications of your study. Response: In section 5.3 Contributions, we add the real-life implications of this study, such as the usefulness of the resilience evaluation system established in this study for urban risk management and how the evaluation indicators can help to improve the resilience of the supply chain of specialty agricultural products, and so on. Response to the Reviewer #1 The manuscript improved from the previous version because you wrote more details on methods and discussion to resilience studies. I suggest a minor revision because I noticed you often repeat "resilience" in the same paragraph (see for example the Contribution section). Please, check once more the whole text and avoid repetitions. Instead of using "resilience", I suggest to give more insights about it. You can describe, for example, some dynamics and processes. Response: We have rechecked the entire manuscript and deleted the repetition of "resilience" to avoid unnecessary repetition of terminology. In addition, we have rewritten section 5.3 Contributions and added dynamic process descriptions and real-life representations of resilience, including the value of resilience metrics, urban risk management, and resilience-enhancing policymaking, among others. All traces of the changes are kept in the document 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326770.r004
Decision Letter - Babak Aslani, Editor Research on urban resilience assessment and driving forces based on Production-Living-Ecological Spaces: A case study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area in China PONE-D-24-55110R2 Dear Dr. Liu, 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, Babak Aslani Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The reviewers were satisfied by the revised version. The paper can be accepted for publication in the current format. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> 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 Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326770.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Babak Aslani, Editor PONE-D-24-55110R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, 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. Babak Aslani Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326770.r006

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 .