https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4794-4700
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJuly 8, 2025 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Takamoto, 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.
Reviewer 2:
Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 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.
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, Prateek Srivastav 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 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by the Givers Corporation (https://givers.co.jp/) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (23K10467) award to K.T. (https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-grantsinaid/). Y.A., I.O., G.T., and Y.T. are employees of Givers Corporation.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 6. 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. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: Review of the manuscript titled: Relationship between the asymmetry of the resting scapular position and the prevalence of latent myofascial trigger points in the trapezius muscle in asymptomatic adults. The topic is of importance in musculoskeletal research and clinical biomechanics, particularly given the increasing interest in subclinical neuromuscular imbalances and their potential role in the development of pain syndromes. The manuscript is well-structured and methodologically sound. The sample size calculation is transparently reported and justified, and the statistical analysis appears appropriate for the research question. The manuscript’s findings, particularly the association between scapular depression and latent MTrPs on the dominant side, provide important insights into the pathophysiological continuum between muscle dysfunction and postural misalignment in asymptomatic individuals. The conclusion is cautious yet meaningful, suggesting a potential link that merits further investigation in longitudinal or interventional designs. My comments: - The manuscript does not clearly specify whether the diagnosis of latent MTrPs was conducted via palpation or USG. Although it is mentioned that an experienced clinician performed the assessment, the methodological rigour would benefit from a clearer explanation of the diagnostic criteria and techniques used (e.g., application of Travell and Simons’ criteria, number of examiners, intra-rater reliability). This should be elaborated in the Methods section. - While the theoretical background is generally well presented, the authors rely heavily on outdated sources (e.g., Simons et al., 1998). The mechanistic model of MTrP development, as outlined in the introduction, could be more robustly contextualised using recent literature. I encourage the authors to incorporate findings from the following recent works, which offer updated insights into myofascial dysfunction, postural relationships, and muscle stiffness: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.12.005 ; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00719-y ; https://doi.org/10.3390/s24030718 or https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1412412. Incorporating these will strengthen the rationale and ensure the discussion reflects the current state of the science. -The discussion is well-written and clinically insightful. However, the current use of subheadings within the discussion section feels unnecessary and somewhat interrupts the narrative flow. I recommend removing these subheadings and integrating the content into a continuous, cohesive discussion as is standard in PLOS ONE formatting. - Line 47: The sentence “Simons [1] proposed the mechanism of MTrP formation. They explained that…” should be revised for grammatical consistency. Since the cited work refers to a single author (Janet G. Travell or David G. Simons), using “he/she explained” or simply “Simons explained…” would be more appropriate. - Figure 2 Caption: The text refers to “patients” rather than “participants” in an otherwise healthy cohort. This may cause confusion and should be corrected for terminological precision. - Ethical Clarity: While the ethics approval is described adequately, it may be beneficial to clarify whether the participants were screened for physical activity levels or dominant-side training, given their potential influence on scapular positioning and muscle function. - Language and Style: The manuscript is generally clear, but a thorough proofreading by a native English speaker (ideally one familiar with biomedical terminology) would further enhance readability and polish. In conclusion, with minor revisions, particularly in clarifying methods, updating literature, and improving textual fluency, the manuscript will meet the high standards expected for publication in PLOS ONE. Reviewer #2: This work is significant because of its practical relevance in understanding myofascial pain in the trapezius muscle region. Scapular misalignment can create stress in the trapezius muscle and the creation of myofascial trigger points, resulting in pain in the scapula region. Healthcare professionals can utilize this information to guide patients through clinical examinations, assisting them in treating and preventing pain in the region. Suggestion: You could draw a diagram of transparency in the photo you used, using the anatomical reference points of the scapula for educational purposes ********** 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 |
| Revision 1 |
|
Relationship between the asymmetry of the resting scapular position and the prevalence of latent myofascial trigger points in the trapezius muscle in asymptomatic PONE-D-25-37154R1 Dear Dr. Takamoto, 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, Prateek Srivastav Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-37154R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Takamoto, 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. Prateek Srivastav Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .