The role of passion and affect in adolescents’ basketball participation: A self-determination theory perspective

Jiangchuan Wang; Yujie Mao; Peng Tang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333503

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 5, 2025
27 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor PONE-D-25-42252The Role of Passion and Affect in Adolescents' Basketball Participation: A Self-Determination Theory PerspectivePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tang, 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 Oct 11 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, Henri Tilga, 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 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. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. 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. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 ****** 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 study addresses a relevant topic in sports psychology and offers valuable insights into motivational processes among youth athletes. However, several methodological, analytical, and conceptual issues should be addressed to enhance the rigor and clarity of the manuscript. Please to see the attached review report ****** 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 ******** [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: Review Report Passion and Affect.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333503.r001
Revision 1
4 Sep 2025 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for your meticulous review and valuable insights on our manuscript titled “The Role of Passion and Affect in Adolescents’ Basketball Participation: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective” Your professional comments have been instrumental in enhancing the rigor, clarity, and completeness of our work, and we have carefully addressed each of your suggestions. Below is our detailed response to each comment, with references to the corresponding pages in the revised manuscript (note: page numbers refer to the updated version of our manuscript). 1. Comments on the Abstract Reviewer’s Comment The abstract briefly indicates the aim and main results of the study. It should also include effect sizes (e.g., β-values) alongside p-values to assist in describing the magnitude of the observed associations. The term “basketball engagement” must be clearly defined because it appears to be a composite score. An affirmation about the cultural context (China) and the cross-sectional nature would more appropriately situate the generalizability and limitations of the findings. Our Response We have revised the abstract to address all these points (Abstract, Page 1): Added key effect sizes (β-values) and confidence intervals for core pathways (e.g., “harmonious passion positively predicted basketball engagement (β = .280, 95% CI [.127, .432], p = .003) through enhanced positive affect; harmonious passion → positive affect: β = .495, 95% CI [.356, .635], p < .001; positive affect → basketball engagement: β = .253, 95% CI [.132, .373], p = .001”). Clearly defined “basketball engagement” as “a composite score derived from adolescents’ self-reported number of days and duration of basketball participation (excluding school-arranged activities) over the past seven days, standardized via z-scores and modeled as a latent variable in SEM”. Explicitly noted the cultural context (“data from 400 Chinese adolescents from southern China”) and cross-sectional design, and their implications for generalizability (“Given the cross-sectional design and sampling from southern China, the generalizability of our findings to other cultural contexts or regions of China should be interpreted with caution”). 2. Comments on the Introduction Reviewer’s Comment The introduction efficiently establishes the importance of basketball engagement and presents the main constructs of SDT and DMP. The relationship between types of passion (harmonious and obsessive) and affective states needs to be more strictly theorized, however. The review is based predominantly on Western studies; including more research from Eastern cultural contexts would offer greater theoretical grounding and transference. Our Response We have strengthened the theoretical framework and expanded the literature review to include Eastern context studies: Incorporated studies from Chinese/Eastern contexts:“Sports, such as basketball, play an important role in China’s youth development programs [6]. The Chinese government actively promotes basketball in schools across the country, such as setting up basketball in physical education classes and after-school activities[5]...” (Introduction, Page 4) Added a paragraph to clarify the mechanistic link between passion types and affect, grounded in SDT’s basic psychological needs: “Research based on DMP distinguishes two types of passion with different effects on sports engagement [20]...” (Literature Review, Page 7-8) 3. Comments on Participants and Procedure (Methods Section) Reviewer’s Comment The sample is described as being from southern Chinese schools, but there is no explanation given for using this sampling. Generalizability of findings to other regions or to other cultures is doubtful. The gender distribution is seriously unbalanced (112 men, 286 women), which may undermine the validity of gender-based moderation analyses. This should be noted as a limitation. Our Response We have supplemented the sampling rationale and acknowledged the gender imbalance in both the Methods and Limitations sections (Page 29): Added an explanation for sampling from southern China: “The study’s sample was drawn exclusively from schools in southern China, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other regions with different cultural or educational contexts...”. Explicitly noted the gender imbalance in the Methods section (“The sample has a gender imbalance, with 112 male and 286 female participants. This imbalance may slightly compromise the statistical power of gender-based moderation analyses...”). 4. Comments on Measures (Methods Section) Reviewer’s Comment Replacement of “academic activities” with “basketball” in the modification of the Passion Scale is reasonable, but there is no proof of the validity of this alteration in the new environment. The composite indicator of “basketball engagement” is constructed from two self-report items (days and duration). How these are reduced to one score (e.g., sum of z-scores) must be noted in detail. Validity and reliability of the composite measure have not been established. Our Response We have supplemented validation evidence for the modified scales and detailed the composite score construction: For the modified Passion Scale: Added results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify structural validity in the basketball context (Page 12-13). For basketball engagement: To address the construction and psychometric properties of the “basketball engagement” measure, we have supplemented detailed information on score calculation, internal consistency (reliability), and criterion validity in the revised manuscript (Page 13-14). 5. Comments on Analytical Approach (Methods Section) Reviewer’s Comment Use of SEM is justified. Model fit indices are reported and within standard cut-offs, which is great. But no mention of missing data treatment or analysis software/version (although Mplus is mentioned elsewhere). Our Response We have added details on missing data treatment and analysis software : For scale validation, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and hypothesis testing of the structural model were performed in Mplus 8.3. Missing data were handled using Mplus’s default Full Information Maximum Likelihood method (FIML). (Statistical Analysis, Page 15). 6. Comments on Preliminary Analyses (Results Section) Reviewer’s Comment The use of MANOVA in order to compare group differences is appropriate, although post-hoc tests are not presented. Our Response Regarding the post-hoc tests, we note the SPSS warning that post-hoc comparisons (e.g., Tukey’s HSD) were not conducted because both the ‘gender’ and ‘school’ factors only have two groups each. In statistical practice, post-hoc tests (including Tukey’s HSD) are typically used when there are ≥3 groups to compare multiple pairwise differences (to control family-wise error rate). For factors with only 2 groups (e.g., male vs. female, Junior high school vs. Senior high school), a simple independent-samples t-test (or the corresponding contrast in ANOVA) is sufficient to test the binary group difference, as there is only one pairwise comparison to make. 7. Comments on Main Analyses (Results Section) Reviewer’s Comment Structural model results are nicely presented. However, reporting only standardized coefficients (β) and no confidence intervals is limiting for interpretation. Gender and age moderation analysis is welcome, but the models' fit for these multi-group analyses is suboptimal (CFI/TLI ≈ 0.845). This needs to be stated as a limitation, and the results interpreted with caution. The report states that gender differences were not significant in comparing coefficients (Table 5), but sometimes in results and discussion sections, the discussion appears to suggest gender differences. This must be synchronized so it would not create confusion. Our Response We have addressed these issues by supplementing confidence intervals, clarifying model fit limitations, and synchronizing gender difference. Added 95% confidence intervals for all structural paths (e.g., “harmonious passion → positive affect: β = .495, 95% CI [.356, .635], p < .001; positive affect → basketball engagement: β = .253, 95% CI [.132, .373], p = .001”) (Page 18). Explicitly noted the multi-group model fit limitation in both Results and Limitations sections: Results: “While CFI/TLI values were slightly below the 0.900 threshold, RMSEA values met acceptable standards.” (Page 19). Limitations: “In the multi - group analysis exploring the moderating effects of gender and age, the model fit was not ideal, with CFI/TLI around .840... (Page 30). 8. Comments on Discussion Reviewer’s Comment Weak and non-significant gender moderation effects need to be reported more categorically. The inference that “males and junior high students showed stronger pathways” appears overstated on the basis of statistical evidence. Cultural context (e.g., collectivist values, academic pressure) is well integrated, though the analysis could further explore how precisely these help to generate passion and affect in Chinese adolescents. Practical implications are relevant but could be made more concrete. Our Response We have revised the Discussion to address these points: Removed the overstated inference in Abstract (“Additionally, no significant gender differences were found in this study. However, age differences emerged: junior high school students showed stronger pathways for both harmonious passion-basketball engagement and obsessive passion-basketball engagement...”). Made practical implications more concrete for Chinese education systems: “(1) Implementing school-based programs that foster harmonious passion by emphasizing autonomy, enjoyment, and personal growth rather than performance pressure alone. For example, schools can design basketball curricula that offer students choices and set up student-led basketball clubs where students organize training sessions and matches by themselves...” (Page 28). 9. Comments on Limitations Reviewer’s Comment The authors properly state several limitations, including regional sampling and cross-sectional design. Other limitations need to be stated: The sample imbalance by gender and its potential impact on conclusions. The use of a new, untested composite measure of basketball involvement. The relatively poor fit of the multi-group SEM models. Our Response We have added these limitations to the “Limitations and Shortcomings” section (Page 29): Sample gender imbalance: “(2) The sample had a gender imbalance (112 males, 286 females), which may have reduced statistical power to detect gender moderation effects...” Composite measure of basketball engagement: “(6) The basketball engagement composite (days + duration) was newly adapted for this study. While we established internal consistency (α = .930) and criterion validity (correlation with harmonious passion, r = .272, p < .001), it has not been validated against objective measures (e.g., activity tracker data), which may introduce self-report bias.” Multi-group SEM fit: “(4) In the multi - group analysis exploring the moderating effects of gender and age, the model fit was not ideal, with CFI/TLI around .840. This suggests the model might not fully capture the complex relationships...” Additional Correction During the revision process, we identified and corrected minor errors in the Sample sizes (Abstract and Page 13) and model fit of SEM (Page 18) that were overlooked in the initial submission. These corrections do not alter the main findings but improve the accuracy of data presentation. Once again, we would like to thank you for your time, expertise, and constructive feedback. Your input has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We hope the revised version meets the journal’s standards, and we are happy to provide further clarification or make additional revisions if needed. Sincerely, Peng Tang Hohai University Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response Letter to Reviewers Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333503.r002
8 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor <div>PONE-D-25-42252R1The Role of Passion and Affect in Adolescents' Basketball Participation: A Self-Determination Theory PerspectivePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tang, 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 Oct 23 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, Henri Tilga, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. 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.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Please find my detailed review report attached for comprehensive comments. I have no concerns regarding dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. The ethical approval and consent procedures appear appropriate. ****** 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 ******** [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: Review Report Passion and Affect 1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333503.r003
Revision 2
10 Sep 2025 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewer, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript, “The Role of Passion and Affect in Adolescents' Basketball Participation: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective”. We are also deeply grateful to the editor and reviewer for exceptionally insightful and constructive comments, which have been invaluable in helping us to significantly improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered all the feedback and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The changes made have strengthened the clarity, methodological rigor, and overall impact of our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the final minor corrections suggested (note: page numbers refer to the updated version of our manuscript). 1. Comments on Abstract Reviewer’s Comment Regarding the Abstract: Please perform a final proofread to ensure flawless grammar and flow, particularly in the newly added sentences. Our Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have meticulously proofread the entire abstract, with special attention to grammar and sentence fluency. We have made several minor refinements to enhance readability and ensure the text meets a high standard of academic English (Abstract, Page 1). 2.Comments on Methods Reviewer’s Comment Comment 2: Regarding the Methods section (Measures - Basketball Engagement): For ultimate clarity, please explicitly state the formula used to create the composite score. Our Response We greatly appreciate this suggestion, which adds crucial clarity to our methodology. As recommended, we have now explicitly stated the formula used to create the composite score for basketball engagement. The revised text clearly indicates that the score was calculated as the product of the number of days and the average duration per session (Days × Duration), followed by standardization. We believe this revision leaves no ambiguity about how the variable was operationalized (Page 13). 3.Comments on Discussion We also note the reviewer’s positive feedback on our revisions concerning the results, discussion, practical implications, and limitations. We are pleased that these changes were found to be satisfactory. Once again, we extend our deepest gratitude to the editor and the reviewer for their time, expertise, and diligent work throughout the review process. Their efforts have been instrumental in enhancing our manuscript. We hope that our revisions have adequately addressed all remaining points and that the manuscript is now deemed suitable for publication. Sincerely, Peng Tang Hohai University Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_Letter_to_Reviewers_Comments_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333503.r004
15 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor The Role of Passion and Affect in Adolescents' Basketball Participation: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective PONE-D-25-42252R2 Dear Dr. Tang, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Henri Tilga, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewer #1: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors have been highly responsive and have thoroughly addressed all reviewer comments. The manuscript is now methodologically sound, theoretically grounded, and well-written. The remaining suggestions are minor and editorial. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333503.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor PONE-D-25-42252R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tang, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Henri Tilga Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333503.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 .