Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 25, 2025 |
|---|
|
PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Di Nardo, 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 Sep 14 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, Abebayehu Aticho (PhD, Associate Professor) 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [This work was supported in part by LIFE Financial Instrument of the European Community, Life Delfi Project – Dolphin Experience: Lowering Fishing Interactions (LIFE18NAT/IT/000942) and by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4 (Call for tender No. 3138 of 16 December 2021, rectified by Decree n.3175 of 18 December 2021 of Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union) NextGenerationEU. The study was made possible through the support and collaboration of Costa Edutainment, which provided access to their Riccione facility. Special acknowledgment is given to Barbara Marchiori, Gianni Bucci, Barbara Acciai, Paola Righetti, and Claudia Di Mecola for their dedicated contributions and support during the project.]. Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please include a caption for figures 7 and 8. 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. 6. 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 (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? 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: Dear Authors It was an interesting article which presented four classifications of dolphin’s vocalizations in structured and unstructured situations. However, here are some points I hope will contribute to the improvement of your work. The conclusion presented in the abstract indicates that dolphin vocalizations occur more frequently during structured activities compared to unstructured activities. Can we infer that dolphins interact more with humans (during structured activities) than they do with their peers? Is this due to the presence of humans and their training? Alternatively, does this imply that dolphins interact more with one another during structured activities? I would appreciate your clarification on this matter. I believe it would be beneficial to provide a brief definition for each technical term mentioned in the text, such as “social and exploratory behaviors”, “social bonding”, “coordination with groups”. Could you clarify what these behaviors refer to? Were these seven dolphins in the water at the same time, while their sounds were being recorded? or were their vocalizations recorded separately? My understanding from your article is that their sounds were recorded simultaneously. My question is whether the overlap of their vocalizations affects your analysis of their interactive behaviors. It would be beneficial to provide a brief overview of different types of dolphins in the introduction, and explaining why you chose this particular species (if there is a specific reason for your choice). I have a similar comment regarding the types of vocalizations (whistles, Echolocation clicks, burst-pulse sounds, feeding buzzes). It would be appropriate to provide a brief definition for each of the four vocalization types in dolphins. Additionally, please specify the frequency range for each type. Do all of them include high-frequency sounds, or are there also vocalizations with lower frequencies among them (particularly those produced using the melon)? You referred to "trainers" (and not just one trainer). I would appreciate it if you could briefly specify how long these trainers have been interacting with the dolphins, and whether each of them shares an equal level of closeness with the dolphins. Similar to what observed in human infants and children, where the caregiver's relationship can influence the type and frequency of vocalizations, this may also apply to dolphins. For example, the amount of vocalization by a human infant may be greater in the presence of their parents compared to an unfamiliar person/stranger. What is the purpose of the exercises conducted by the trainers and the tasks assigned to the dolphins? Please provide an example. This question has arisen in my mind: are these exercises intended to enhance the dolphins' vocalizations? For instance, could conditioning and rewarding of dolphins for vocalizing be an integral part of this process? I am uncertain about the extent to which this suggestion may enhance your work; however, if feasible, it would be more beneficial to compare three situations instead of two: 1. One situation involves various activities (training, FFR, and plays). 2. Another situation pertains to the rest periods between these activities (for example, the interval between the end of a play and the beginning of the next activity). 3. The third situation is nighttime sleep and free activity, which you have considered as a baseline. This is because the amount of vocalizations during the intervals between activities may yield different and insightful data. Best Regards Reviewer #2: this paper is a well executed and clearly documented study of dolphin vocalization, offering a valuable dataset and behavioral correlations over a 24-hour period. The technical aspects are sound, as is the labelling, and the results are clearly presented. The authors are committed to data transparency. I encourage publication, but also make some comments which, if addressed, I believe would improve the paper. - the association of whistle and pulsed vocalization rates with activity contexts is one of the manuscripts main contributions. I would encourage the authors to consider framing these findings more clearly through the lends of behavioral function. For example, increased vocal rates during play or feeding contexts could reflect coordination, arousal, or social negotiation, as some work in dolphin communication explores (e.g. Janik & Slayih, 2013; King et al. 2023). A behavioral framing allows interpretations grounded in what vocalizations do (facilitate cohesion, warn, signal interest), avoid overreaching analogies to linguistic categories. This approach aligns well with well-established views on animal communication (e.g. Seyfarth & Cheney 2010 on primate calls), and would strengthen the paper's discussion on meaning and usage. - whistles are categorized here solely based on duration (pages 9-10). While this is valid and clear, there is no contour or identity based classification (e.g. signature whistles, shared whistle types), despite the fact that some whistles in the dataset may correspond to such categories. A brief acknowledgement in the discussion of why this was not attempted, or what potential it leaves for follow-up, would help contextualize this choice. as recent work has shown, some non-signature whistles are shared across individuals and can carry context-specific or referential value (e.g. Favaro et al. 2025, King et al. 2023), so this dataset may be of interest for exploring these questions. - the spike in pulsed vocalizations during the play context is intriguing and could merit deeper reflection. Are these signals potentially linked to rough-and-tumble social play, or associated with particular toy-types or social configurations? While I understand the limitations of the available ethogram, a speculative but information behavioral interpretation (arousal, contact negotiation, affiliate signaling) would help situate these results within the broader literature on dolphin social behavior. - the authors note that ECTs have average SNR "clearly below" 10 dB, yet Table 2 also shows that BPS averages just below 10 dB. Please clarify further. - A brief mention of vocal production rates in wild bottlenose dolphins could contextualize the observed patterns and help distinguish between captive-specific behaviors and broader species trends. minor: - typo: “Intellegence-based” (p.2, line 40) should read “Intelligence-based.” - some fine details may be hard to discern at current scale in some figures (especially 4 and 5) - Adding a short note to guide researchers (especially in AI or signal processing) on how best to engage with the dataset would increase its usability and impact (although this is of course not on the authors, and might be misconstrued as guiding potential users away from limitations if not done neutrally enough) ********** 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: Yes: Mina Fotuhi 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 |
|
Acoustic Analysis of Bottlenose Dolphin Vocalizations for Behavioral Classification in Controlled Settings PONE-D-25-34379R1 Dear Dr. Francesco, 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, Abebayehu Aticho Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-34379R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Di Nardo, 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 Professor Abebayehu Aticho 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 .