“It’s because they’re my kids, and I love them”: Substance use disorders’ impact on children and families: A secondary analysis

Meghan K. Ford; Ryan Truong; Ayesha Shakeel; Bruce Knox; Susan Bartels; Colleen Davison; Michele Cole; Logan Jackson; Eva Purkey; Imaan Bayoumi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327654

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 19, 2024
Decision Letter - Anthony Olashore, Editor Dear Dr. Bayoumi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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, Anthony A. Olashore, MBCHB, PhD. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention. 5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. 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. 7. 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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: This is an important study addressing an important global health issue. Authors need to confine themselves to reporting of secondary data analysis as well as explain the conceptual framework they use to guide that secondary analysis. Additionally, authors need to subject their manuscript to language editing service. Reviewer #2: 1. would have loved to see the raw data as it emerges from the analysis, but its still ok as the authors elaborated on how they conducted the analysis. 2. Research on adversity can often rekindle past unpleasant memories, authors should always put up a mechanisms for those who may feel unsettled with such interviews. Authors did not mention or put up anything should that have occured Reviewer #3: This is a good paper, but I believe it needs to be reviewed for a better presentation. This is a secondary study, but the way it is presented suggests that data was obtained from participants, despite the fact that it was extracted from the primary data source. Methods: Line 101 to 144: "...study entitled, “Engaging Families to Build Healthy Communities" Is this study already been published? If yes, I suggest that authors reference the paper and delete sentences that describe the primary study. I tried to get the primary study; so far I could only access the abstract (https://www.annfammed.org/content/22/Supplement_1/6251). If it was not published, the authors should provide a summary of the primary study and concentrate on the method by which they extracted data from the primary source: sampling strategies and procedure to include data, as it from how many participants? ... Line 145: Ethical Considerations: This should be more about manipulation of data from the primary source; was it done in an ethical manner? Also, techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (member checking, audit trail, triangulation). Results: Authors should remember that in the secondary study they were dealing with data from participants and not with participants directly. So this should be stated as (line 181): Data from six families were extracted from the primary study for analysis in this study. Reviewer #4: This is well written paper that explores a relatively neglected angle in addiction care. Despite the small sample the insights gleaned can add to improving care. Just one question: could the fact that inclusion criteria included families who believed that their family or household members were interested in participating in a project that "created social change" have led to a bias towards recruiting participants with a strong desire for social change and therefore inadvertently excluded those withut such desire?. Perhaps note could be taken of this under limitations. Reviewer #5: The manuscript is technically sound, and the data supports the conclusions. The analyses was performed as expected and the manuscript is written in clear intelligible English. The manuscript is acceptable for publishing as presented. ****** 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: Hlanganiso Roy Reviewer #3: Yes: Stephane Tshitenge Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes: Olorunfemi Oladotun Ogunwobi ******** [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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RV_Impact_Substance Use_Familes and Children_TrackChanges.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-36212 (4).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327654.r001
Revision 1
14 Apr 2025 Author Response Response to reviewers Journal requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The title has been edited as recommended. 2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. The ethics statement was removed from the Acknowledgements section, since it already appeared in Methods. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. Data files for this study cannot be shared due to confidentiality. The following documentation is available: Qualtrics survey tool, letter of information and consent and assent tools, semi structured focus group interview guides, semi-structured in-depth interview guides, Photovoice interview guides, validation protocol for knowledge dissemination (2024-08-16). The Data Availability Statement has been updated. 4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention. There are no citations in the abstract. 5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. All information shared is in accordance with participant consent. No personal information is included. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. 7. 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. References have been corrected. Specifically, the full reference #1 has been added and updated and missing information was added to reference #18 Reviewer 1 This is an important study addressing an important global health issue. Authors need to confine themselves to reporting of secondary data analysis as well as explain the conceptual framework they use to guide that secondary analysis. Additionally, authors need to subject their manuscript to language editing service. The manuscript has been edited for clarity and is focused on the secondary analysis. The main study is now only briefly discussed. Reviewer 2 1. would have loved to see the raw data as it emerges from the analysis, but its still ok as the authors elaborated on how they conducted the analysis. We are unable to share the raw data due to confidentiality but have provided additional detail in 2. Research on adversity can often rekindle past unpleasant memories, authors should always put up a mechanisms for those who may feel unsettled with such interviews. Authors did not mention or put up anything should that have occured Thank you for pointing out this important need. We have updated the ethics section to describe the process of recommending available community supports for participants who needed them. Reviewer 3 This is a good paper, but I believe it needs to be reviewed for a better presentation. This is a secondary study, but the way it is presented suggests that data was obtained from participants, despite the fact that it was extracted from the primary data source. Methods: Line 101 to 144: "...study entitled, “Engaging Families to Build Healthy Communities" Is this study already been published? If yes, I suggest that authors reference the paper and delete sentences that describe the primary study. I tried to get the primary study; so far I could only access the abstract (https://www.annfammed.org/content/22/Supplement_1/6251). If it was not published, the authors should provide a summary of the primary study and concentrate on the method by which they extracted data from the primary source: sampling strategies and procedure to include data, as it from how many participants? ... Line 145: Ethical Considerations: This should be more about manipulation of data from the primary source; was it done in an ethical manner? Also, techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (member checking, audit trail, triangulation). Results: Authors should remember that in the secondary study they were dealing with data from participants and not with participants directly. So this should be stated as (line 181): Data from six families were extracted from the primary study for analysis in this study. Thank you for the comment. Reporting on the primary study is currently under review, which was clarified in the text. We have described in additional detail the validation of results with participants and with community partners and triangulation of analysis. We think Ethical consideration should related to ethics in the conduct of research. We have summarized the ethical considerations and hope it is clear. Reviewer 4 This is well written paper that explores a relatively neglected angle in addiction care. Despite the small sample the insights gleaned can add to improving care. Just one question: could the fact that inclusion criteria included families who believed that their family or household members were interested in participating in a project that "created social change" have led to a bias towards recruiting participants with a strong desire for social change and therefore inadvertently excluded those withut such desire?. Perhaps note could be taken of this under limitations. Thank you – we have added this observation to the study limitations. Reviewer 5 The manuscript is technically sound, and the data supports the conclusions. The analyses was performed as expected and the manuscript is written in clear intelligible English. The manuscript is acceptable for publishing as presented. Thank you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers April 7 2025.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327654.r002
Decision Letter - Anthony Olashore, Editor Dear Dr. Bayoumi, 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 Jul 12 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 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, Anthony A. Olashore, MBCHB, PhD, FWACP 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 Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors are commended for satisfactorily responding to the raised comments. This is an important study that adds to the body of knowledge regarding this important issue. Reviewer #2: My earlier concerns have been attended to, especially on ethics which are key in any human subject research studies Reviewer #3: I understand that this paper uses data from the main study “Engaging Families to Build Healthy Communities” that is yet to be published. This is a secondary analysis aimed at exploring new questions or applying different analytical methods to gain additional insights (specifically, the ways in which substance use affected families). To avoid confusion, I suggest that the authors replace terms like "primary study" in lines 90 and 102... with "main study," as mentioned in line 98. The paper meets the trustworthiness criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability); however, the authors need to mention how saturation of data was achieved, duration of the interviews or group discussions, whether field notes were taken during interviews or group discussions. Few sentences can be added to meet the 32-item checklist COREQ (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies). ****** 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: Hlanganiso Roy Reviewer #3: Yes: stephane tshitenge ******** [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.0327654.r003
Revision 2
13 Jun 2025 Author Response Reviewer Feedback Author Response 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 Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Thank you. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Thank you. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A Thank you. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Thank you. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Thank you. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors are commended for satisfactorily responding to the raised comments. This is an important study that adds to the body of knowledge regarding this important issue. Thank you. Reviewer #2: My earlier concerns have been attended to, especially on ethics which are key in any human subject research studies Thank you. Reviewer #3: I understand that this paper uses data from the main study “Engaging Families to Build Healthy Communities” that is yet to be published. This is a secondary analysis aimed at exploring new questions or applying different analytical methods to gain additional insights (specifically, the ways in which substance use affected families). To avoid confusion, I suggest that the authors replace terms like "primary study" in lines 90 and 102... with "main study," as mentioned in line 98. We have changed the term ‘primary study’ to ‘main study’ throughout the manuscript The paper meets the trustworthiness criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability); however, the authors need to mention how saturation of data was achieved, duration of the interviews or group discussions, whether field notes were taken during interviews or group discussions. Few sentences can be added to meet the 32-item checklist COREQ (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies). Thank you for this helpful feedback. We note in line 144/145 that ‘All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and lasted between one and two hours in length.’ We have added a note indicating that field notes were not consistently captured. We also added the methods for determining data saturation on line 163/164. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers June 2025.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327654.r004
Decision Letter - Anthony Olashore, Editor “It’s because they’re my kids, and I love them”: Substance Use Disorders’ Impact on Children and Families: A Secondary Analysis. PONE-D-24-36212R2 Dear Dr. Bayoumi, 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, Anthony A. Olashore, PhD. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Comments to the Author Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #3: All of my earlier remarks have been addressed. The paper meet the 32-item checklist COREQ (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies). ****** 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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327654.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Anthony Olashore, Editor PONE-D-24-36212R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bayoumi, 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. Anthony A. Olashore Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327654.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 .