https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0790-1891
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMay 10, 2025 |
|---|
|
-->PONE-D-25-24652-->-->Unpacking musical beauty: sound, emotion, and impact differences across expertise and personality-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arthurs, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 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:-->
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, Andrea Schiavio 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [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: 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: Yes 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: I would like to thank author(s) for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper addresses an interesting topic. This study examined how individuals experience musical beauty by comparing self-selected beautiful and non-beautiful pieces. Analysis of responses revealed that beautiful music is characterized by gentle acoustic features and evokes emotions, such as calmness and pleasant sadness. Beauty evoked by music also provides emotional support and inspiration. Listeners with highly openness were especially sensitive to musical aesthetics, highlighting the role of personality in shaping beauty perception. However, several points would benefit from further clarification or revision to strengthen the overall quality and impact of the manuscript. Three points are particularly concerned. 1. The novelty of the research has not been shown. 2. The introduction and discussion do not explain sufficiently most relevant studies that are similar to this study. In the introduction and discussion, although extensive references are provided, they do not appear to be organically integrated with the aim and interpretation of results of this study. 3. Redundancy of descriptions and obscurity of the definition of beauty The results are presented in a lengthy manner because the elements obtained from the participants' responses are listed in order, which can make them appear redundant. The results are explained using various insights such as emotions and nostalgia, but it is somewhat unclear whether they can truly be explained as “beauty.” For details, please see below. Comment#1: Introduction p.3, l.49-52: This is an overstate, given many psychological studies on music and beauty. To avoid misunderstanding by readers, a more modest expression should be used. In particular, the following papers appear to be related to this study. Fleckenstein et al. (2025) is particularly similar in terms of methodology. This study should discuss previous studies sufficiently and clarify what is known and what is unknown in order to describe the research gap. This will make it easier for readers to understand the significance of this study. Furthermore, it should be comparable to the latest research by Brattico et al. (2025) using listening experiments. If this study delves into subjective perceptions of beauty using a method different from listening experiments, explaining the similarities and differences with actual listening will help readers gain a deeper understanding. Fleckenstein, A. M., Vuoskoski, J. K., & Dibben, N. (2025). Understanding Musical Beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 43(1), 505-523. Brattico, E., Brusa, A., Dietz, M., Jacobsen, T., Fernandes, H. M., Gaggero, G., .. & Proverbio, A. M. (2025). Beauty and the brain–Investigating the neural and musical attributes of beauty during naturalistic music listening. Neuroscience, 567, 308-325. Comment#2: Introduction Features of music perceived as beautiful p.4, l.75-76 ‘chills, being moved and the feeling of awe’ It is necessary to explain to readers that chills or being moved are appropriate examples of aesthetic experiences. In many cases, these are often considered in relation to emotion. To avoid such confusion, it can be better to describe (or operationally define) what constitutes an aesthetic experience. Comment #3: Introduction p.4, l.79-82: Prior research should be explained thoroughly. Rather than just referring to Omigie et al. [29] in detail, the author(s) should summarize all the studies mentioned in this section concisely, explaining what has been clarified and what has not been clarified in the previous studies cited. Comment#4: Introduction p.5, l.95-97: Adding a clear explanation of the relationship between beauty and processing fluency and musical knowledge will make it easier for readers to understand. Comment #5: Feelings and emotion when experiencing beauty in music p.6, l.122-123: ‘That perceived beauty and sadness in music are positively correlated [50,52]…’ These studies suggest that sad music can induce positive emotions. If so, simply saying “sadness” is insufficient, and a more specific explanation is preferable. Comment #6: Individual differences: musical training and personality p.8, l.174-177: This assumption is probably too definitive. Musicians are expected to be more involved in music. In other words, they are likely to spend more time engaging in music and thinking about it. This will increase their exposure to musical beauty. Comment #7: Individual differences: musical training and personality p.9, l.198-200: Based on the previous research, it is necessary to discuss what further consideration is required. This is because the previous research summarized in this paragraph appears to have already been considered to a certain extent. Comment #8: The present study p.9, l.203-205: It is difficult to understand what the research gap is. It can be easier for readers to understand if succinct summary is again here. Comment #9: The present study p.10, l. 221-223: ‘As for emotion and impact, text responses allow the reporting of rich and diverse responses that might not be possible if participants were provided only with pre-defined emotion labels and statements, e.g., [100,101].’ Specifically, this part should describe the limitations of the methods used in previous studies and how the methods used in this study can overcome those limitations. The same applies to text analysis. The weaknesses of text analysis and the advantages of the methods used in this study should be mentioned. Comment #10: Participants p.11, l.242: What is ‘Prolific’? Comment #11: Survey p.12, l.260-263:‘“Could you tell us the details of three pieces of music which you find to be very beautiful?” for the beautiful pieces block, and “Now, could you tell us the details of three pieces of music you listen to often but which you wouldn’t describe as beautiful?” for the not beautiful block.’ The phrase “listen to it often” is included when asking about songs that are not beautiful, but why is that? Given such frequencies of listening, wouldn't other factors such as familiarity are related to? Also, why didn't author(s) ask what “beautiful songs they listen to often” are? Comment #12: Analysis Text Responses to open-ended questions p.15, l.319-325: Because coding greatly influences the results of this study, it is necessary to mention the reliability of coding. For example, indicators such as the kappa coefficient would be useful. Comment #13: Results and Findings Pieces volunteered by participants. p.17, l.358-374: It can be reasonable to assume that experiencing beauty has a significant influence on human behavior. However, if that is the case, why is it that many songs considered beautiful are classical music, which people do not listen to often? Conversely, why is rock music, which is considered less beautiful, listened to? Comment #14: Table 1. Examples of Responses from Feature Questions. p.l8-20: Regarding Table 1, why were so many negative responses regarding music that is not beautiful obtained? The question asks about music that is “often listened to but not beautiful.” These responses appear to be impressions of music that the respondents do not like. Why do respondents “often listen to” songs with such negative characteristics? Do these responses indicate a gap between beauty and preference? Or did the participants list songs that are “generally considered beautiful”? Comment #15: Discussion p.37, l.652-660: The introduction did not clearly explain the research gap, making it difficult for readers to understand what new findings this study revealed. The introduction should clearly state the research gap and then summarize the main findings of this study in a concise manner at the beginning of the discussion in response to that gap. Comment #16: Discussion p.37, l.652-660: In the discussion, it is important to clearly state what new findings were revealed in this study that were not previously identified in the literature. While the author(s) argue that the results of this study are consistent with many previous studies, they do not clearly state the novelty of this study. To help readers understand the novelty of this study, it is important to clearly explain what is new about this study. Comment #17: Discussion p.37, l.652-660: In the discussion, “beauty” and “preference” seem to be confused. Does the content that the author(s) are discussing as ‘beautiful’ music also apply to music that is “preferable but not beautiful”? Judging from the participants' responses, beauty seems to be associated with positive contents and, as a result, with preference. Therefore, analyzing these responses seems to be discussing beauty and the positive contents and preferences it contains as a single entity. Indeed, it is possible to find something beautiful but not like it. This phenomenon appears to be similar to the distinction between “perceived emotion” and “felt emotion” often discussed in terms of musical emotions. Does beauty not have such a state? In any case, careful discussion is necessary about what the participants' responses actually represent. Comment #18: Discussion p.37, l.652-660: The analysis and results are wide-ranging and contain many contents related to beauty, making it difficult to grasp. It can be easier for readers to understand if the results of “beauty” obtained in this study could be modeled or diagrammed as a figure. Comment #19: Discussion p.37, l.662-663: The sub-heading is long and vague, so it should be made more concise and to the point. Comment #20: Discussion Beautiful music is characterised by its intrinsic features, cognitive structural factors and listeners’ application of aesthetic criteria p.38, l.682-683: ‘while Complexity level is reminiscent of the inverted-U [92,93] and processing fluency theories [32].’ Please explain in detail. Have these theories been used to explain beauty in previous studies? Otherwise, is this a new finding of this study? Comment #21: Discussion The affective profile of beautiful music: feeling calm, pleasurably sad, being moved and feeling emotionally supported p.40, l.715-772: Because discussion about beauty and preferences is lack, it should be discussed. Comment #22: Discussion The affective profile of beautiful music: feeling calm, pleasurably sad, being moved and feeling emotionally supported p.42, l.760-761: ‘There are arguably two reasons why the pieces that listeners find beautiful might help them to deal with emotional difficulties.’ Do these conclusions apply to music that is “not beautiful but preferable”? Ultimately, as mentioned earlier, it is necessary to pay attention to what the participants' responses represent in order to draw conclusions. Comment #23: Discussion Beautiful music impacts mood, evokes the past, motivates musical activities, but is not used to shape identity p.43, l.782-784: ‘Another impact many mentioned is that listening to beautiful pieces was able to help them retrieve past events, people or feelings in memories, as discussed in the wide literature on music and autobiographical memories, e.g., [127].’ Isn't this a case of reverse causality? Could it be that we find certain songs beautiful because they are associated with specific memories? Or is it that beautiful songs are more likely to be associated with memories? In any case, evidence is needed to support this argument. Comment #24: Discussion Beautiful music impacts mood, evokes the past, motivates musical activities, but is not used to shape identity p.43, l.792-796: ‘Responses revealed that while listening to both beautiful and not beautiful pieces stimulate the listener’s musical curiosity and intelligence (such as the desire to understand the structure of the piece, enjoy its complexity, or discover novel musical expressions), listening to beautiful pieces tended to give rise to the desires to engage in further musical activities.’ This part seems to contradict the subsequent discussion. Ultimately, does beauty promote motivation, or is there some other mediating factor? Comment #25: Discussion Beautiful music impacts mood, evokes the past, motivates musical activities, but is not used to shape identity p.44, l.802-804: ‘Participants also reported that listening to not beautiful pieces influenced their musical preference for particular genres and helps shape their musical identity and identity in a broader sense, in line with previous studies [130–132].’ Why do not beautiful songs contribute to identity formation? How have previous studies discussed such tendency? Comment #26: Discussion Individual differences in musical beauty experience p.44, l.811-834: The reasons for the results differing from those of previous studies should be discussed in detail. Otherwise, it will be difficult for readers to understand what these results represent. Comment #27: Discussion Individual differences in musical beauty experience p.44, l.822-825: ‘For instance, professional musicians tended to mention Intrinsic features of sound and music (Feature) in beautiful music more frequently, reflecting musicians’ finer perceptual and cognitive musical abilities, e.g., [133], and their greater ability to explain music and their musical experiences using technical terms, e.g., [134].’ Does this tendency indicate that musicians and non-musicians have different perceptions of what constitutes “beauty”? If so, then the results obtained from the responses may simply reflect individual differences in the interpretation of the word “beauty,” rather than a specific ability to perceive music as beautiful. Comment #28: Discussion p.45, l.842-848: ‘Musical beauty seems to offer the listener not only an opportunity to appreciate music’s form, emotional expression and originality, but can also offer consolation and support in challenging times. Interestingly, while some intuitive trends were observed with regard to how individual differences influence the experience of musical beauty, our results were largely in keeping with Plato’s and Kant’s idea, supported by recent empirical work [11] that the experience of musical beauty (specifically features perceived as important, emotional responding, and psychological impact) is largely universal.’ Since the respondents' comments were so diverse, isn't it natural that there would be individual differences? Just because no individual differences were observed in terms of personality trait does not mean that it is an exaggeration to generalize beauty. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Unpacking musical beauty: sound, emotion, and impact differences across expertise and personality" (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-24652), submitted to PLOS ONE. This manuscript uses a mixed-methods approach to explore the concept of musical beauty, with a sample of 81 adult participants. Participants were asked to provide qualitative reflections on musical features, emotional responses and the long-term impact of pieces they considered beautiful, as opposed to pieces they liked but would not describe as beautiful. Through thematic analysis, the authors identified recurring themes associated with the perception of musical beauty. A subsequent quantitative analysis used Poisson regression to examine whether differences in musical training and personality traits predicted how often participants referred to specific themes when reflecting on beautiful versus non-beautiful music. General comments: Overall, I think the manuscript is well written, clearly organized, and engaging. I appreciated the way in which the authors combined qualitative insights with quantitative analysis, and really enjoyed reading the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is almost ready for publication. I have provided some suggestions for minor revisions in the detailed comments below. which I hope the authors will find useful. Detailed comments: Abstract: The abstract is clear and well-written. It is especially helpful that it immediately summarizes the key characteristics that according to the qualitative results distinguish music that is perceived as beautiful from music that is merely liked. To improve clarity, the authors could provide brief, concrete examples of the high-level features mentioned, such as specifying “a balanced level of complexity” rather than the more general “complexity level”. Introduction: - The introduction is well-structured and provides a comprehensive overview of previous research into the concept of musical beauty. One area that could benefit from further clarification in my view is the distinction between beauty, aesthetic emotions (such as awe) and cognitive judgements about music. Since musical beauty is conceptualized differently in different studies (sometimes more as an aesthetic emotion and sometimes more as a cognitive judgement) these different perspectives could be introduced more explicitly at an earlier stage. - Prior to discussing previous research on the characteristics of beautiful music, the authors could introduce the three main focus areas of the study (musical features, emotional responses and long-term impact) more clearly. Since other dimensions, such as cognitive responses (e.g. thoughts evoked by the music), could also be relevant, providing a brief rationale for why exactly these three areas were chosen would strengthen the framing of the study. - In line 61, beauty is described as a key factor in enabling positive aesthetic judgement. However, this may imply a directional relationship that is not clearly established, as the perception of beauty could also follow positive aesthetic judgement. Could you perhaps clarify this, or formulate both directions? - Line 86: It would be helpful to explain why only tension and energy are mentioned in the context of the Omigie et al. study. Were these the most commonly reported emotions in this study or the only emotions contributing to different emotional profiles of beautiful vs. not-beautiful music pieces? - Line 96 – “Perceived beauty has been argued to be influenced by the ease with which a piece a piece can be cognitively processed” Here the direction of the effect could be clarified. Is beauty associated with greater or lesser processing ease? - When discussing the possible influence of musical expertise on the perception of beauty, it would be beneficial to introduce the concept of knowledge-based emotions at an earlier stage in the manuscript. Currently, this concept is only briefly mentioned in the discussion. Method: - I recommend adding the age range of the participants to the sample description. If available, it would also be helpful to include more demographic information, such as the participants' country of residence and educational background. It would also be useful to state whether any eligibility criteria or filters were applied during the recruitment process. Since cultural background may influence perceptions of musical beauty, including these details would provide important context for interpreting the findings. - Line 303 – “however, these measurements were not included in the current analysis.” Consider rephrasing this sentence to make it clear that only the EBS was excluded from the analysis (and not both EBS and TIPI) Analysis: - The subheadings in the analysis section could be more specific. Consider using headings such as “Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses” and “Quantitative analysis of the influence of musicianship and personality traits”. - Thematic analysis: The description of the coding process could be clearer. To me, it was not entirely clear whether only Author 2 initially coded all responses and then discussed the codes with others, or whether multiple authors independently coded the data. If multiple coders rated the same responses, it would be important to report an inter-rater reliability metric, such as Fleiss’ Kappa. - Line 350 – “Poisson mixed effect models were run to examine the influence of music type and listener individual differences on these dependent variables of interest”: It took me some time to understand that the dependent variables were the themes found within the three core topics of features, emotions and impacts. This could be stated more clearly. - Line 351-356 “with participant ID and pieces included as random effects”: From the phrasing of the open-ended questions, it appears that participants were asked within the same question to describe features (in the other questions emotions or impacts) across three selected musical pieces, as well as more generally for music they consider beautiful or not beautiful. If so, it may have been difficult to distinguish whether the responses referred to the specific pieces or the category as a whole. This raises the question of whether it would have been more appropriate to count themes at the condition level (beautiful vs. non-beautiful) rather than for each individual piece. Aggregating theme counts by condition could also reduce model complexity of the Poisson regressions. However, I may have misunderstood this part of the procedure. If so, a clearer explanation in the manuscript would be helpful. Results: - Figure 1/Table 1: To me, it was not immediately obvious that the quotes in Table 1 are not organized by the individual codes listed in Figure 1. This could be made clearer. One way to achieve this would be to present one representative quote per code, or alternatively, to label each quote with the corresponding code name. - Table 5 & 6: Given the relatively small sample size, using Poisson regression models with 15 predictors could be too ambitious and risk overfitting. There may be alternative modelling strategies worth exploring. For instance, computing difference scores (i.e., the frequency of the theme being mentioned in the beautiful music condition minus the frequency in non-beautiful music condition) could streamline the analysis by eliminating the need for interaction terms. But this approach would likely require a linear regression model instead of a Poisson model, depending on the distribution of the difference scores. Another option would be to analyze theme frequencies only for the beautiful music condition, reducing model complexity and possibly yielding clearer insights. Although I am not a specialist in mixed Poisson regression, I would like to offer these suggestions as possible alternatives that might help to address the models' complexity relative to the sample size. Discussion: - One area that could be expanded upon is the comparison of the present results with those of Fleckenstein et al. (2025). While the authors reference this study when discussing specific codes or themes, a more direct comparison of the relative prominence of themes identified in both studies would be valuable. - Line 752-759: The link between musical beauty and emotion regulation is very interesting. Perhaps the authors could elaborate more on this point. For instance, different types of music (beautiful versus not beautiful) might serve distinct functions in mood regulation. High-energy, less beautiful music might be more suitable for emotional release or catharsis (e.g. discharging tension or negative emotions), whereas low-energy, beautiful music may be better suited to emotional reflection or finding emotional comfort. ********** -->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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
-->PONE-D-25-24652R1-->-->Unpacking musical beauty: sound, emotion, and impact differences across expertise and personality-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arthurs, 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 22 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:-->
-->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, Andrea Schiavio Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** -->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 ********** -->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: 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: I would like to thank author(s) for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. The authors have made substantial improvements compared to the initial submission, and the paper is now clearer and more convincing overall. I appreciate the efforts taken to revise the manuscript in response to the earlier comments. That said, there remain several points that require further attention. These issues are not as extensive as in the first round, but they are nevertheless important for ensuring the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the work. I outline these specific concerns in the detailed comments below. Comment #11: Survey p.12, l.260-263:‘“Could you tell us the details of three pieces of music which you find to be very beautiful?” for the beautiful pieces block, and “Now, could you tell us the details of three pieces of music you listen to often but which you wouldn’t describe as beautiful?” for the not beautiful block.’ The phrase “listen to it often” is included when asking about songs that are not beautiful, but why is that? Given such frequencies of listening, wouldn't other factors such as familiarity are related to? Also, why didn't author(s) ask what “beautiful songs they listen to often” are? Response: We included the phrase ‘listen to often’ for not beautiful pieces to prevent participants from conflating not beautiful music with disliked music. We wanted to make sure that participants provide not-beautiful pieces they choose to listen to as they choose to listen to beautiful pieces. However, we agree that it may have helped reduce any effect of familiarity if we had requested that participants report beautiful music they listen to often to match our control condition. We now mention this as a limitation. -Line 1044, page 64. ‘Additionally, our study did not examine how familiarity or preference for the pieces listed by participants might have influenced their experience of musical beauty. Future studies could impose more control to ensure that participants’ level of familiarity and liking are maximally comparable between beautiful and not beautiful pieces.’ Comment #11: Round2 The implications of this instruction should be considered in interpreting the results. The author(s) mentioned the association between beauty and processing fluency. Since familiarity correlates with processing fluency, the instruction “listen to it often” itself may be a factor related to beauty. If control for factors were to be exercised, why wasn't the instruction phrased as “beautiful music you listen to often”? Although beauty and liking are not entirely independent, the results derived from this instruction warrant more careful discussion. Among the two factors—beautiful/not beautiful, listen often/don't listen often—wouldn't “not beautiful and not listened to it often” be considered the least beautiful music? Comment #13: Results and Findings Pieces volunteered by participants. p.17, l.358-374: It can be reasonable to assume that experiencing beauty has a significant influence on human behavior. However, if that is the case, why is it that many songs considered beautiful are classical music, which people do not listen to often? Conversely, why is rock music, which is considered less beautiful, listened to? Response: Thanks for this interesting comment. We would argue, however, that even if beautiful music was listened to less frequently than music not found beautiful it would still have the ability to influence behaviour as much if not more. For instance, it is possible that beautiful music (which can often be classical music) is listened to more attentively than non beautiful music and as such has a more significant emotional impact. We, however, refrain from adding this speculation to the manuscript in the interest of brevity. Comment #13: Round2 This explanation requires further elaboration. One motivation for playing an instrument is a strong emotional experience, and certainly, the beauty of music is involved in such experiences. However, what is crucial here is the emotional experience itself—is beauty a necessary condition? Ultimately, as with the previous comment, beauty and personal preference are intertwined, so it is necessary to clarify these concepts before proceeding with the discussion. Comment #14: Table 1. Examples of Responses from Feature Questions.p.l8-20: Regarding Table 1, why were so many negative responses regarding music that is not beautiful obtained? The question asks about music that is “often listened to but not beautiful.” These responses appear to be impressions of music that the respondents do not like. Why do respondents “often listen to” songs with such negative characteristics? Do these responses indicate a gap between beauty and preference? Or did the participants list songs that are “generally considered beautiful”? Response: Thank you for this question. We want to stress that negative feelings here include feelings like agitation and restlessness which while not positive, might be aesthetically valuable to a listener. In that vein, the occurrence of negative feelings may not be so surprising. Comment #14: Round 2 Please incorporate the content here into the body text. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, Thank you for your additional work on the manuscript entitled “Unpacking musical beauty: sound, emotion, and impact differences across expertise and personality" (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-24652). Overall, I believe the manuscript has improved considerably, and I do not have any major concerns at this stage. However, I have a few minor suggestions that may help strengthen the final version. 1. Language use & style: The manuscript is quite lengthy, and some sections are repetitive. For example, the sentence “In addition to lacking a clear definition, also frequently debated is how beauty should be conceptualised.” repeats the same idea. Similarly, in this passage the word "recognized" is repeated in consecutive sentences: "Here, it is recognised that it may be a positive experience for the listener when a piece of music unfolds as they anticipated [40,41]. However, it is also increasingly recognised that a degree of unexpectedness, surprise, or novelty in music can lead to greater feelings of pleasure.” These are just a couple of examples, but there are other similar instances throughout the text. I recommend carefully reading through the text with an eye toward tightening the language and reducing redundancy. You might also consider having a native English speaker review the manuscript to improve clarity and flow. 2. Long-term influences: The introduction mentions the long-term impact of experiencing beauty in music as a novel feature of this study. However, this aspect is not revisited in depth later in the manuscript. It is also unclear from the questionnaire whether participants were prompted to reflect on short-term or long-term effects. To clarify, it would be helpful to state in the introduction that the study explores both immediate and potentially lasting impacts. Consider referencing this again in the results and/or discussion. 3. Discussion: I felt that the new discussion section headings were too long and complex. To improve readability and structure, I suggest simplifying them. For example: “Intrinsic, structural, and aesthetic elements of beautiful music”, “Emotional responses to beautiful music”, “Short- and long-term impacts of beautiful music”, “Individual differences in experiences of beauty” 4. Figure 8 & Abstract: For Figure 8, consider providing a more balanced level of detail across all three sections. In the section "What beautiful music makes people feel" you list specific emotional responses reported by participants. However, in "What makes music beautiful", you only list broader categories (e.g., timbre, melody) without providing concrete examples of what was perceived as beautiful. Similarily, the abstract mentions emotional and impact-related findings but does not touch on the specific musical features that participants associated with beauty. Since many readers may only read the abstract or jump directly to the discussion and this nice figure, clearly and concisely summarizing all key findings in both Figure 8 and the abstract would strengthen the accessibility and impact of your work. 5. Limitations: Another potential limitation you might mention is the within-subjects design. Asking participants to reflect on beautiful and non-beautiful music may have encouraged them to emphasize the differences between the two, which could have influenced their responses. A future between-subjects design could have yielded different results and potentially reduced this contrast effect. ********** -->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.--> |
| Revision 2 |
|
Unpacking musical beauty: sound, emotion, and impact differences across expertise and personality PONE-D-25-24652R2 Dear Dr. Arthurs, 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, Andrea Schiavio 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 #1: All comments have been addressed 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 ********** -->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: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Dear authors, Thank you for revising the article and addressing all my main comments. Overall, I feel that the article has improved in terms of readability and clarity thanks to your efforts to streamline it. The abstract and summary figure are also now more informative and will provide readers with a useful overview. One minor point: I noticed that you intend to make the data available on OSF once the manuscript has been accepted. Please remember to include the OSF link in the final version of the manuscript. Once this has been done, I recommend accepting the article for publication. ********** -->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: Yes: Julia Vigl ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-24652R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arthurs, 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 Andrea Schiavio 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 .