Choosing to succeed? Insights into doctoral students’ supervisor selection and its outcomes

Danila Pavliuk; Svetlana Zhuchkova

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328471

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 17, 2024
Decision Letter - Bekalu Tadesse Moges, Editor PONE-D-24-33457 Choosing to succeed? Insights into doctoral students’ supervisor selection and its outcomes PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pavliuk, 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. Dear Authors, please carefully attend to the comments given by the reviewers and improve the quality of the manuscript. Its my earnest believe that the comments will enhance the quaity of the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 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, Bekalu Tadesse Moges 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. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. “We have published regression dataset that used in our research at Harvard Dataverse under CC0 v1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YKNXO3” Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: No 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: Dear Authors Thanks for the very interesting manuscript draft. I have read the draft and felt that - it is interesting and relevant to postgraduate supervision. If the suggested comments are effected, some of the academic institutions could benefit a lot from the manuscripts when considering guidelines for selecting the supervisor(s) by doctoral students. 1. Structure - please improve the structure by arranging your headings well. Presenting the section of data before materials and methods confuses the reader; combing the results and methods; and discussion with conclusion also confuses the reader. 2. Statistics - both the introduction and literature review could benefit a lot from additional statistics that relate to those who chose supervisors themselves, did they complete timeously or with a struggle, or those who were compelled to work with a particular supervisor, did they complete timeously, or did they have a good working relationship. What are the benefits of studying all these selection strategies? this is not clear in the introduction or background. 3. Tables - there are lots of tables that confuses the reader - consider compressing some of the tables. Additional, some of these tables are not referenced on the intext discussion. 4. Conclusion and recommendation are critical elements for a manuscripts - the current draft requires a separate clear conclusion and recommendations. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript about approaches to choosing a doctoral supervisor and relationships with supervisor challenges. I found the study interesting but quite hard to follow. I have a few overarching comments and several more comments within specific sections for the authors for consideration. Overarching comments: 1. The manuscript needs a thorough review and edit for English language. For example, authors switch from plural to singular language but should stay plural. 2. Structure of sections is quite odd, - the distinction between the Methods and Results is unclear. 3. Methods section is not organized into traditional subsections such as Sample and Participants, Procedure, Measures, and Analysis. 4. Unclear if the study is about "Russian doctoral students" or "doctoral students in Russia", the latter which would include foreign born students in Russia. Abstract L11: "Research usually..." - which research? Introduction L36: Add citations to back up argument. L40: "An inappropriate" - for clarity of meaning, probably better to say "unsuitable" or "unfitting". L46: "..demographic factors" - give examples. L50-51: "..various selection strategies contribute to the difficulties during doctoral training" - hard to follow argument, give examples. L78: After "Doctoral students" add "usually" before "evaluate". L85-87: This appears quite serious and would warrant more elaboration. L89: "...supervisor's background... likely explained" - please add citations to back up argument. L97: "These papers" - revise to "These studies". L98: "..these factors can vary", Which factors and vary how? Clarify meaning. L107: "..generalizing the obtained findings" - in Russia? Elsewhere? Your study is exclusive to Russia. How does that move the literature forward? L115: "More than half of Russian doctoral students are male (66%)..". To be exact, this is 2/3. L115: Note that the argument about 2/3 of Russian doctoral students being male and that the sample employed in this study is 53% female seriously calls to question the generalizability of the findings if unaddressed. L117-119: Please give actual numbers. Statements about "challenges" in Russian doctoral education are unverified if left without actual trend numbers. For instance, what is the "crisis of Russian doctoral education"? L123: "..supervisors in Russia are still the main figures in a doctoral journey.." - as opposed to what? Please clarify meaning. L127-128: "..practices of team supervision" and "not regulated normatively" - please give examples for clarity. L133-134: "..high academic requirements... 3 papers in highly ranked journals" - is this a requirement to defend a dissertation or some other milestone? Please clarify. L136-139: Please explain context. Doctoral programs and procedures differ between places and countries. These are for example not the traditional processes in the US. Making sure that all audiences understand your narrative is important. L145-146: Clarify meaning. Can you not become a supervisor if you are hired more than 30 days after each student's enrollment? Data This is where I would think the "Methods" section should begin. L170: 2392 were in the numerator but the denominator is not included. Please clarify and insert a response rate. L171: Why are students from "research institutes" excluded? Unsubstantiated to cut 15% of the sample in this way. L183: 53% of the sample being female while 66% of doctoral students are male seriously calls to question the generalizability of the sample. L184: with most participants being 1st or 2nd year, - how many of those have not yet selected a supervisor? Or if all already do than that should be clarified. Materials and Methods L188: Materials and Methods - this section reads like a "Measures" subsection. L202: What about "other reasons" - was there no option for that? L206: As far as I can tell, these are analytical results and should belong in the Results section. L210-211: Unclear how PCA accounts for variations in response numbers. With multiple choice questions some students may have selected 1 option and some all options. Please clarify. L223: Briefly expplain the Thurstone method. L223-224: "These scores.." - which scores? Table 3: Findings have unclear relevance to the study. Please clarify in the Introduction why these findings are important and part of the study. Table 3: Last section in analysis. F-statistic assumes linear trends but the "Field of Study" is nominal variable. This analysis appears incorrect. L252-253: "N=1606 excluding..". Unclear relevance and meaning. L285: "A significant proportion" - unclear meaning. What is a "significant proportion". Results L304: By here a lot of "Results" have already been shown. Tables 5 and 6: Why so many models and why this order of variables in the models? Please clarify. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Masenyani Oupa Mbombi Reviewer #2: Yes: Alfgeir L. Kristjansson ******** [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: PONE-D-24-33457_reviewer (1).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328471.r001
Revision 1
19 Apr 2025 Author Response We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments provided by the reviewers. We have carefully reviewed each comment, and we believe that their insightful feedback has greatly enhanced the revised version of our manuscript. Our detailed responses to each point can be found in the below and in the file "Response to Reviewers". ### Reviewer 1 ### ___ Reviewer’s Comment: Structure - please improve the structure by arranging your headings well. Presenting the section of data before materials and methods confuses the reader; combing the results and methods; and discussion with conclusion also confuses the reader. Authors’ Response: We changed the structure of the manuscript. In particular, we merged the “Data” and “Materials and methods” sections into a single “Methods” section to create a more coherent framework for describing our procedures. Within this section, we re-labeled the “Data” as “Sample” for greater clarity in presenting our participants and data collection. We also separated the “Discussion” and “Conclusion” sections. ____ Reviewer’s Comment: Statistics - both the introduction and literature review could benefit a lot from additional statistics that relate to those who chose supervisors themselves, did they complete timeously or with a struggle, or those who were compelled to work with a particular supervisor, did they complete timeously, or did they have a good working relationship. What are the benefits of studying all these selection strategies? this is not clear in the introduction or background. Authors’ Response: Unfortunately, after a thorough additional literature review we conclude that there are no available quantitative statistics on this matter. We provide more examples of qualitative studies of various consequences for the selection strategies and more explicitly emphasize the lack of quantitative studies, as well as the limitations of the existing ones. ____ Reviewer’s Comment: Tables - there are lots of tables that confuses the reader - consider compressing some of the tables. Additional, some of these tables are not referenced on the intext discussion. Authors’ Response: We removed two tables from the manuscript that may have been misleading to readers. We also checked the remaining tables that we refer to in the text. ____ Reviewer’s Comment: Conclusion and recommendation are critical elements for a manuscripts - the current draft requires a separate clear conclusion and recommendations. Authors’ Response: We separated the “Discussion” and “Conclusion” sections. Conclusion now only summarises our own results, while “Discussion” provides links with previous literature as well as practical recommendations based on our findings. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: Add the conclusion on the abstract Authors’ Response: We added a conclusion to the abstract (“The study highlights the critical role of agency in supervisor selection, showing that structured support for informed decision-making – whether through institutional matchmaking systems or student mentoring programs – can mitigate risks of poor supervision outcomes. These findings call for policy interventions that promote transparency in supervisor selection processes, especially in contexts where students have limited choices.”). ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L48: what is the significance of studying the relationship between these factors Authors’ Response: We added the explanation: “Understanding this linkage is crucial because early-stage selection decisions may either facilitate smooth progress or lead to irreversible conflicts, ultimately impacting completion rates and research quality.” ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L58: Add a background relating to the benefits of selecting the supervisors, either by the institutional or personal factors Authors’ Response: For each of the reviewed criteria to choose a supervisor, we added explanations on how a student can benefit from their interaction. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L98: This is a good sentence, consider incorporating the same to the above paragraphs Authors’ Response: Thanks for this suggestion. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L117: Any statistics about those selecting supervisors for themselves or those who supervisors were chosen for them. It can be interesting if you can find the existing statistics that shows differences in terms of completion or study progress between those who chose supervisors themselves and those whom the supervisors were chosen for them. Authors’ Response: Unfortunately, after a thorough additional literature review we conclude that there are no available quantitative statistics on this matter. We provide more examples of qualitative studies of various consequences for the selection strategies and more explicitly emphasize the lack of quantitative studies, as well as the limitations of the existing ones. Likewise, we cannot provide up-to-date and representative statistics on which is more common in Russia: students choosing their supervisors or their being appointed by the department. However, we can indirectly assert that doctoral students more frequently select their own supervisors, as large-scale surveys indicate that only 16% choose them based on departmental recommendations. We have clarified this point in the text. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L155: This arrangement of data before methods is confusing to me as reader - consider incorporating this section to the method section Authors’ Response: We changed the structure of the manuscript. In particular, we merged the “Data” and “Materials and methods” sections into a single “Methods” section to create a more coherent framework for describing our procedures. Within this section, we re-labeled the “Data” as “Sample” for greater clarity in presenting our participants and data collection. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L156: Please unpack the survey - how was it like? Has the survey been tested for reliability and validity? What type of questions were included in the survey. Authors’ Response: We significantly extended our description of the survey. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L243: Where are you referring or narrating this table Authors’ Response: We decided to remove this table and this part of our paper as non-relevant for our research. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L345: What conclusion can you draw based on your findings? what advice/s can you give to institutions regarding doctoral supervisor selection? Can institution change their current practice? Separate conclusion from discussion. make recommendations based on your findings. The article structure require major adjustments. I struggle to follow when reading the article. Authors’ Response: We separated the “Discussion” and “Conclusion” sections. Conclusion now only summarises our own results, while “Discussion” provides links with previous literature as well as practical recommendations based on our findings. We also extended this part of the article. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L348: what is your conclusion based on this statement? Authors’ Response: We included main conclusions after each finding. ___ Reviewer’s Comment: L412: Which reference style is practiced here? Be consistent as well Authors’ Response: We checked the References section for consistency with the style of the journal and corrected inaccuracies. ### Reviewer 2 ### ___ Reviewer’s Comment: The manuscript needs a thorough review and edit for English language. For example, authors switch from plural to singular language but should stay plural. Authors’ Response: We relied on formal proofreading procedures in the new version of the manuscript. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: Structure of sections is quite odd, - the distinction between the Methods and Results is unclear. Authors’ Response: We significantly restructured our methodological section of the manuscript, as well as removed irrelevant descriptive results from this section. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: Methods section is not organized into traditional subsections such as Sample and Participants, Procedure, Measures, and Analysis. Authors’ Response: We changed the structure of the manuscript. In particular, we merged the Data and Materials and methods sections into a single Methods section to create a more coherent framework for describing our procedures. This section is now divided into more traditional Sample, Measures, Analysis subsections. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: Unclear if the study is about "Russian doctoral students" or "doctoral students in Russia", the latter which would include foreign born students in Russia. Authors’ Response: We refined the text for clarity. Our study encompasses doctoral students educated in Russia, including those who were born outside the country. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L11: "Research usually..." - which research? Authors’ Response: We clarified in the manuscript that the discussion pertains to the field of doctoral supervision. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L36: Add citations to back up argument. Authors’ Response: We added citations to support this argument. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L40: "An inappropriate" - for clarity of meaning, probably better to say "unsuitable" or "unfitting". Authors’ Response: We made the suggested replacement. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L46: "..demographic factors" - give examples. Authors’ Response: We included examples of demographic factors in the Introduction. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L50-51: "..various selection strategies contribute to the difficulties during doctoral training" - hard to follow argument, give examples. Authors’ Response: We clarified in the text that this refers to difficulties in interacting with the supervisor. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L78: After "Doctoral students" add "usually" before "evaluate". Authors’ Response: We added the suggested word. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L85-87: This appears quite serious and would warrant more elaboration. Authors’ Response: We added more discussion and references on this matter. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L89: "...supervisor's background... likely explained" - please add citations to back up argument. Authors’ Response: We added citations to support this argument. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L97: "These papers" - revise to "These studies". Authors’ Response: We made the suggested replacement. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L98: "..these factors can vary", Which factors and vary how? Clarify meaning. Authors’ Response: We revised this part of the paragraph to clarify its meaning. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L107: "..generalizing the obtained findings" - in Russia? Elsewhere? Your study is exclusive to Russia. How does that move the literature forward? Authors’ Response: We clarified some features of our study that may improve literature in this part of text. In particular, we shifted our focus from generalization to the fact that we present a larger sample from a nationwide survey that covers different categories of doctoral students and different organizations and allows us to conduct quantitative analysis of several factors simultaneously. We additionally added how our study could be useful to policy-makers. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L115: "More than half of Russian doctoral students are male (66%)..". To be exact, this is 2/3. Authors’ Response: We don’t use these exact statistics in the updated version of the paper (see next comment for details). _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L115: Note that the argument about 2/3 of Russian doctoral students being male and that the sample employed in this study is 53% female seriously calls to question the generalizability of the findings if unaddressed. Authors’ Response: In our original draft, we presented the last and actual figures for the 2022-2023 study year. However, because our survey sample was collected at the end of the 2021-2022 academic year (May-August 2022), when the proportion of male doctoral students across all types of organisations was 56%, we recognized the potential for confusion. To maintain consistency in our statistical reporting, we therefore used data from the 2021–2022 academic year and substantiated these figures by citing an authoritative statistical compendium. Additionally, we extended our description of limitations to warn readers on potential biases produced by overrepresentation of females. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L117-119: Please give actual numbers. Statements about "challenges" in Russian doctoral education are unverified if left without actual trend numbers. For instance, what is the "crisis of Russian doctoral education"? Authors’ Response: We provided relevant statistical data to this paragraph. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L123: "..supervisors in Russia are still the main figures in a doctoral journey.." - as opposed to what? Please clarify meaning. Authors’ Response: We clarified this part (“supervisors in Russia are still the main figures in a doctoral journey, i.e., they still provide all the guidelines on how to prepare and defend dissertation as opposed to the structured models where some of the necessary knowledge could be provided by doctoral school or other faculty”). _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L127-128: "..practices of team supervision" and "not regulated normatively" - please give examples for clarity. Authors’ Response: We clarified this part (“practices of team supervision (i.e., cases when a student has several official supervisors) are rare and can only be possible in circumstances of multidisciplinary research or on programs arranged by two institutions”). _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L133-134: "..high academic requirements... 3 papers in highly ranked journals" - is this a requirement to defend a dissertation or some other milestone? Please clarify. Authors’ Response: We clarified this part (“to get to a dissertation defence”). _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L136-139: Please explain context. Doctoral programs and procedures differ between places and countries. These are for example not the traditional processes in the US. Making sure that all audiences understand your narrative is important. Authors’ Response: We tried to clarify the specifics of the Russian context in this part: “Thus, defences in Russia follow strict formal requirements mandated by the Higher Attestation Commission, including mandatory pre-defence procedures (which require departmental reviews, approval timelines, formal announcements on the websites), document verification at multiple administrative levels, standardized formatting rules for dissertation manuscripts, etc. Usually it is supervisors who navigate these bureaucratic flows, i.e., interpret these requirements for candidates, coordinate with dissertation councils, as well as secure necessary approvals.” _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L145-146: Clarify meaning. Can you not become a supervisor if you are hired more than 30 days after each student's enrollment? Authors’ Response: We clarified this part (“it is obligatory for each student to choose and approve a supervisor within one month after the start of the program”). _____ Reviewer’s Comment: This is where I would think the "Methods" section should begin. Authors’ Response: We merged the Data and Materials and methods sections into a single Methods section to create a more coherent framework for describing our procedures. Within this section, we re-labeled the Data subsection as Sample for greater clarity in presenting our participants and data collection. _____ Reviewer’s Comment: L170: 2392 were in the numerator but the denominator is not included. Please clarify and insert a response rate. Authors’ Response: The survey employed a quota‐based sampling approach (this information, along with the established quotas, is detailed in the “Sample” subsection). Invitations were distributed in a manner that prevented determining the exact number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation link (university administrators were responsible for that, not the authors of the paper). Because a precise denominator is unavailable, a response rate cannot be computed and is not applicable to our data. To enhance the transparency of our research and the characteristics of our data, we have incorporated an improved description of the survey data and collection methods Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328471.r002
Decision Letter - Bekalu Tadesse Moges, Editor Choosing to succeed? Insights into doctoral students’ supervisor selection and its outcomes PONE-D-24-33457R1 Dear Dr. Danila Pavliuk, 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, Bekalu Tadesse Moges 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: The authors have addressed my earlier comments to my satisfaction. I commend them on a job well done. Thank you ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328471.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bekalu Tadesse Moges, Editor PONE-D-24-33457R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pavliuk, 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. Bekalu Tadesse Moges Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328471.r004

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 .