Dear Dr. Lipo,

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 address all comments by the reviewer in detail before re-submission

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 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.

• 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 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,

Peter F. Biehl, 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. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS One's requirements for paleontology and archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research .

3. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [Funding for the fieldwork was supported by a National Science Foundation grant (Award #2218602).]. 

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.

5. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

6.  We note that Figure(s) 1, 2, 9 and S1  in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1, 2, 9 and S1  to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. We notice that your supplementary figure is included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address all comments by the reviewer in detail before resubmission

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I thought this was a really interesting paper that accomplishes the major goal of creating a publicly accessible 3D database of the Rano Raraku quarry site on Rapa Nui—and through the collection of high-resolution imagery—postulates how the famous moai statues were carved and the sociopolitical mechanisms behind their construction. Overall, I thought the paper was well written and have only a few, mostly minor, comments that I think would help to improve the paper.

Abstract – the authors pose the paradox first without presenting the underlying question behind it. Logically, it would make more sense to flip the first and second sentences and rephrase slightly.

While the authors provide a brief background section on Rapa Nui and the quarry, for readers unfamiliar with anything but what these statues look like, it would be helpful to provide a brief summary on what we know archaeologically about the colonization of Rapa Nui and the major cultural stages. Included in this should be some temporal inferences that provide context on when the island was first settled, when quarrying began (and at what quarries) and ended, where these statues were eventually placed around the island, etc. This doesn’t have to be lengthy (and the paper is relatively short, so there would seem to be plenty of room to add this in), and some kind of cultural chronology would help many readers (re)familiarize themselves with Rapa Nui’s history which the authors seem to take for granted that everyone knows.

In terms of the centralization question and its role in moai manufacture, I had a few comments/queries. The first is, even in a centralized organization, can there not be variation in what is produced? The authors make the argument that what the detailed imagery (and previous inferences from other scholars) shows is not a hierarchical nature but one that is instead heterarchical. That may very well be the case, but there are many past and present analogues that demonstrate variable ways for producing or constructing objects (apart from mass production where there are templates/casts, etc.).

For example, in many societies that have centralized power (whether big or small), the ways in which megaliths, pottery, stone tools, textiles, etc. were produced can have inherent variation in style and decoration that is reflective of family units, clan/kin, or artisanry groups. I guess that I do not necessarily see the impossibility of this in the Rapa Nui case, despite other lines of evidence suggesting that decentralized power was perhaps the norm.

p. 10 – what is meant by “small production teams”? Are we talking 3 people? 10? 25? And while the workshop area might have certainly limited those who had direct access to the statue being carved, I would imagine that others would be in line to take over during rest breaks, etc. Production crews would also presumably involve others who would provide resources (food, water), etc. I guess my point here is, though the physical space to carve might be constrained, this does not necessarily equate to “smaller production teams” which could be X number of times bigger.

p. 11 – back to the question of centralized coordination and “relatively small groups”, what is meant by “small” and cannot centralization be at the level of smaller (micro) or medium (meso) sized groups (however defined)? I guess the issue for me is that the authors are painting a picture of centralization that assumes an island-wide centralized effort, but a strict definition of the term does not require a large island-wide/village sized group as a requirement for centralized power. Hypothetically, this requirement could technically be met by one village of 100 people or less consolidating their power to quarry one part of Rano Raraku and a completely separate village doing the same contemporaneously. Each has centralized their efforts, which the same evidence presented in this paper would seem to show.

To remedy this, I think the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of what they mean by centralization and connect this to an expanded background section on Rapa Nui prehistory which could provide some additional information on where villages were located, how many the authors think were occupied at any one time, and by how many people.

p. 11 – authors propose “high local cultural retention with limited long-range community interaction.” On an island that is only about 23 km across, what is meant here by “long-range”? This of course is a relative scale, but when it comes down to communication, this would seem to be a negligible variable.

Finally, are there any corollaries in the Pacific or elsewhere that the authors could provide which would either provide support for their interpretation of societies that can “effectively coordinate large-scale productive activities through distributed networks of semi-autonomous groups, while maintaining both competitive dynamics and cultural cohesion”. It would be helpful for readers to know whether this is a highly unique feature to Rapa Nui, or something that is visible elsewhere (and in what circumstances/contexts).

**********

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

Megalithic statue (moai) production on Rapa Nui (Easter Island, Chile)

PONE-D-25-37143R1

Dear Dr. Lipo,

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,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: