PONE-D-25-17469User preferences in multi-objective routes: the role of gradient visualization and personality measuresPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Otaki,

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. When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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,

Genyu Xu, Ph.D.

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 note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. We note that Figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C 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].”

2. 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/

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents a compelling and innovative exploration of user preferences in multi-objective route planning, effectively integrating gradient visualization and personality measures to advance personalized navigation design. However, it faces several challenges, including verbose and redundant language, vague or inconsistently defined terminology, insufficient quantitative rigor, unclear logical connections across sections, and inadequately designed figures that fail to meet scientific visualization standards. The following changes are recommended:

The abstract suffers from verbosity, vague terminology, and insufficient quantitative detail, reducing its conciseness and scientific rigor. The main problems are as follows:

� Verbose Language: Phrases like “we develop our framework to investigate” and repeated use of “our” (e.g., “our framework,” “our survey”) make the text less concise.

� Vague Terminology: Terms such as “multi-objective navigation,” “gradient information,” and “route-choice phenomena” are not clearly defined, potentially confusing readers.

� Lack of Specificity: Statements like “using modern multi-objective planning algorithms and crowdsourcing services” are overly broad, lacking details about the specific methods or technologies used.

� Insufficient Quantitative Detail: Claims such as “modestly encourages the selection of non-shortest and gentler routes” and “more pronounced preference” lack supporting data (e.g., percentages, statistical significance). The statement “route selection was also influenced by travel distance” is vague about the direction or magnitude of the effect.

� Unclear Relevance: Terms like “Big Five and Sensation Seeking dimensions” are standard in psychology but may confuse non-experts without context linking them to route choice.

The introduction provides a foundation for navigation research and research questions but is undermined by unclear content, loose structure, insufficient rigor, redundant language, imprecise terminology, and unclear positioning, reducing its academic persuasiveness and readability. The following changes are recommended:

� Overly Detailed Example: Example 1 includes excessive specifics (e.g., path numbers, colors), diverting focus from research objectives and failing to link clearly to the study’s goals.

� Weak Justification of Research Gap: The claim of “a significant gap” in understanding route evaluation lacks robust evidence, with only a few studies cited to support the link between personality traits and route choice, undermining the study’s necessity.

� Redundant and Subjective Language: Repeated use of “we” (e.g., “we develop a framework”) is overly subjective and detracts from the objective academic tone.

� Unclear Study Uniqueness: The introduction does not specify how the study addresses the understudied link between multi-objective routes and personality traits through methodological or theoretical innovation.

The related research section requires comprehensive refinement in content clarity, logical structure, scientific rigor, language expression, and terminology to enhance its academic value and readability. The following changes are recommended:

� Unclear Subsection Focus: Subsections (e.g., preparing navigation routes, personality in navigation, visualization and explanations) lack clear focus and logical connections, failing to align with the introduction’s research questions (RQ1-RQ3).

� Insufficient Scientific Rigor: Key claims lack literature support, and speculative statements (e.g., “we can hypothesize that walking time information would be valuable”) weaken credibility.

� Redundant and Inconsistent Language: Frequent use of phrases like “we can” or “for example” and inconsistent terminology (e.g., “personality measures” vs. other terms) reduce clarity.

� Vague Terminology: Terms like “crowdsourcing” and “multi-objective algorithms” are overly broad, lacking precise descriptions (e.g., “user-generated route data,” “Pareto-based route optimization”).

The results section requires comprehensive refinement in content clarity, analytical logic, scientific rigor, language expression, and data presentation to enhance its academic rigor and readability. The following changes are recommended:

� Weak Analytical Logic: The analysis does not clearly address research questions (RQ1-RQ3), relying heavily on data descriptions (e.g., means, statistical tests) without qualitative interpretation of trends or implications.

� Insufficient Scientific Rigor: Key statistical details (e.g., effect sizes, confidence intervals) are missing, and data filtering criteria (e.g., “valid participants”) are unclear.

� Unclear Personality Trait Analysis: The practical meaning of Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) subdimensions (e.g., TAS, Dis) and their relevance to route choice are not explained beyond statistical differences.

� Redundant and Inconsistent Language: Phrases like “in the following, we...” are redundant, and terms like “gentler gradient” or “gradual route” are used inconsistently.

� Suboptimal Data Presentation: Direct references to figures (e.g., “Figure 4a shows...”) are overused, and figure annotations are not self-explanatory, limiting accessibility for readers without visuals.

The discussion is well-structured, but it lacks depth, specificity, and clarity in some areas, limiting its persuasiveness. The following changes are recommended:

� Superficial Result Interpretation: Responses to research questions (RQ1-RQ3) are clear but lack depth. For example, the conjecture about the lack of significant impact from gradient visualization (lines 406-407) lacks theoretical or data support.

� Brief Comparison to Prior Work: Comparisons with other studies (lines 423-441) are limited, mentioning only pedestrian-driver differences and personality measures, without highlighting the study’s unique contributions.

� Incomplete Limitations Analysis: Limitations (e.g., small sample size, suboptimal map visualization, regional focus, online survey constraints) are identified but not analyzed for their specific impacts on results (e.g., effect on statistical significance).

� Broad Future Directions: Suggestions like field experiments and expanding route attributes are vague, lacking specific experimental designs or methods.

� Verbose and Vague Language: Sentences like “we can start by clustering users according to these scores when recommending non-shortest routes” (line 421) are verbose and lack precision.

The figures are inadequately designed, overly casual, and fail to meet scientific visualization standards due to unreasonable layouts, non-standard plotting, and missing or unclear annotations. For example,

� Figure 1a: The legend obscures substantial content, reducing clarity.

� Figure 1b: Lacks a legend and uses non-standard English expressions.

� Figures 2a and 2b: The maps are not in standard English, but in Japanese, limiting accessibility.

� Figure 6d: Lacks a legend, reducing interpretability.

Similar problems exist in other diagrams and full verification is recommended.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript investigates how users perceive two designated walking routes, with a focus on how suggestions for non-shortest paths may enhance personalized navigation. While the topic has relevance in the context of adaptive routing systems, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to meet the standards of academic journal publication. Detailed comments are as follows:

The walking time difference between Routes A and B is only one minute, which raises questions about whether such a marginal difference is sufficient to elicit meaningful user preference shifts. The authors should discuss the generalizability of their findings. Specifically, how representative are these two paths in broader urban contexts? Additional justification is needed to support the external validity and practical implications of the experimental design.

While the study discusses trade-offs between path distance and slope, it is unclear whether a formal multi-objective optimization framework was applied. If only two fixed paths (A and B) were compared without a systematic modeling of user preferences or Pareto front evaluation, describing the framework as "multi-objective" may be an overstatement. The authors are encouraged to clarify whether this is a conceptual framing or supported by a multi-objective algorithmic design.

Ensure all figures use English labels, and axes are clearly marked with units where applicable.

Improve the visual clarity and design aesthetics of the graphs to enhance readability and data comprehension.

Abstract

The method description in the abstract is too detailed; please condense it.

Add key findings and outcomes to make the abstract more informative and balanced.

Introduction

The introduction should be completely rewritten to follow standard academic structure: background, literature review, research objectives, and research gap.

Do not include research findings in the Introduction section; such content should appear in the Results or Conclusion.

Figure 1 should include a clear legend explaining the routes.

Cite more recent studies from the last three years to strengthen the literature context and highlight the manuscript’s contribution.

Related research

The logic and flow of this section are unclear. Reorganize the content to present a coherent review of existing studies.

Emphasize literature synthesis and critique rather than introducing this study’s content.

Statements directly describing the present research should be rephrased and placed toward the end of this section, for example:

“Beyond these studies, we focus on collecting route-level preference data to address this gap...”

Methods and materials

The methodology is difficult to follow. A flowchart is recommended to visually present the research process.

The description on Page 5 — “Fig. 1 conceptually illustrates the trade-off between route distance and gradient...” — lacks clarity. Please elaborate further.

Justify why Routes A and B were selected. What are the environmental or physical characteristics surrounding these paths?

The questionnaire should be included in the Appendix to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Results

Some inconsistencies are noted between data description and figures. For example, “Figs. 3a and 3b show the histograms of the entered ages and gender of all participants and valid participants,” yet Figure 3 does not clearly reflect this.

The number “546” is mentioned without adequate explanation. Clarify its relevance to the figures or study design.

Conclusion

The conclusion should emphasize key findings, contributions, and potential applications.

Avoid reiterating research motivations or background explanations in this section.

You may find interest in the following reference for complementary insights:

Planning for heat-resilient educational precincts: Framework formulation, cooling infra-structure selection and walkable routes determination.

Synergizing low-carbon transportation and heat adaptation: Identifying suitable routes and integrating mitigation and adaptation infrastructure.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: attachment.docx

<div>PONE-D-25-17469R1User preferences in multi-objective routes: the role of gradient visualization and personality measuresPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Otaki,

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 Aug 21 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,

Genyu Xu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. I greatly appreciate the effort and dedication you have invested in addressing the previous reviewer comments and improving the manuscript. The revisions demonstrate a commendable commitment to enhancing the clarity and scientific rigor of your work, and the study’s contributions to the field are evident.

However, I must note that several issues regarding non-standardized figure formatting persist in the revised figures, which continue to impact the manuscript’s overall presentation and readability. Specifically:

Inconsistent Figure Formatting: While some figures have been improved, there remain inconsistencies in the style and formatting across figures. For example, the use of different line styles, marker sizes, or color schemes without clear justification creates a disjointed visual experience. I recommend adopting a uniform style guide for all figures to ensure consistency.

Incomplete Axis Labeling: Certain figures still lack complete axis labels or units, which is critical for accurate data interpretation. For instance, units for numerical values or clear descriptors for categorical axes are missing in some cases. Please ensure that all axes are fully labeled with appropriate units and descriptions.

Suboptimal Legend Design: The legends in several figures could be further refined. In some instances, legends are either overly crowded or not sufficiently descriptive, making it challenging to interpret the data quickly. I suggest simplifying and standardizing legend entries to improve clarity and accessibility.

Recommendation:

These non-standardized plotting issues, while not detracting from the scientific merit of the study, significantly affect the professional presentation of the manuscript. I strongly recommend a thorough review and revision of all figures to align with the journal’s graphical standards (e.g., PLOS ONE’s figure guidelines). Utilizing professional visualization tools (e.g., Adobe Illustrator, R, or Python’s Matplotlib with a consistent style configuration) could help achieve a polished and cohesive set of figures.

Reviewer #2: I am pleased to confirm that this revised manuscript has now fully addressed the concerns from my prior review.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Attachments.docx

User preferences in multi-objective routes: the role of gradient visualization and personality measures

PONE-D-25-17469R2

Dear Dr. Otaki,

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,

Genyu Xu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: