Defining upper extremity dominance: The contributions of hand preference and grip strength

Mohamadreza Hatefi; Seyedeh Feriyal Mahdavi; Amirreza Abbasi; Farideh Babakhani

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0336916

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 15, 2025
7 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Hasan Sozen, Editor Dear Dr. Hatefi, 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 Nov 21 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, Hasan Sozen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. 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. 5. 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: No 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: 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? No I perceive a restriction in the data availability from the statement of availability of data and materials. "The datasets utilized and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request." The authors may need to clarify this. Methods The authors may have to specify if they used a sampling technique in this study. In this study, purposive sampling could be applicable and the reasons for its application stated clearly. Ethics approval and statement of consent to participate "All participants signed a written informed consent form." For such a study, it would be a good practice leave a copy of the signed consent form with the study participant, and one retained by the researcher. The authors may also clarify this. Reviewer #2: I have re-attached the manuscript with track changes (where applicable) and comments. The author is likely to have used AI to genenerate discussion, i have highlighted few areas, Referencing style is heterogenrous. The Author shoule use one reference style in entire manuscript ****** 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: Alyao Oscar Simon Reviewer #2: Yes: James Arinaitwe ******** [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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336916.r001
Revision 1
9 Oct 2025 Author Response Responses to the comments We very much appreciated your encouraging and insightful comments. We have endeavored to respond to all suggestions and comments, which further improved the understanding and potential impact of our paper. We responded to the mentioned comments in both the “revised manuscript” file and this one. In the manuscript, responses to the first reviewer have been highlighted green and yellow for the second reviewer. Hope our effort meets the editorial board's expectations. Sincerely Yours, Authors. Reviewer: 1 Authors: Dear Professor, thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. I truly appreciate your helpful feedback. I have done my best to revise the text based on your suggestions and believe the changes have strengthened the work. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? No Authors: We confirm that all raw data underlying the findings of this study have been uploaded as a supplementary file in the journal’s submission system. I perceive a restriction in the data availability from the statement of availability of data and materials. "The datasets utilized and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request." The authors may need to clarify this. Authors: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. To clarify, all raw datasets generated and analyzed during the current study have been “uploaded as a supplementary file” in the journal’s submission system and are therefore “fully available”. The previous statement regarding data availability has been revised accordingly to eliminate any ambiguity. Methods The authors may have to specify if they used a sampling technique in this study. In this study, purposive sampling could be applicable and the reasons for its application stated clearly. Authors: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The study indeed employed a purposive sampling technique, as participants were deliberately selected based on specific inclusion criteria relevant to the study objectives. The “Participants” section has been revised to reflect this clarification. Ethics approval and statement of consent to participate "All participants signed a written informed consent form." For such a study, it would be a good practice leave a copy of the signed consent form with the study participant, and one retained by the researcher. The authors may also clarify this. Authors: Dear Professor, it is don and highlighted in the manuscript. Reviewer: 2 Authors: Dear Professor, thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. I truly appreciate your helpful feedback. I have done my best to revise the text based on your suggestions and believe the changes have strengthened the work. This is More of the Background of the study, rather than Introduction. Add relevancy of the study and or problem statement. Ad a paragraph on Global and regional picture. Authors: Dear Professor, it is don and highlighted in the manuscript. AI generated. Even when you use AI to generate a text, try to read through and use human language. Authors: Dear Professor, thank you for your consideration. This section has been revised and highlighted in the manuscript. Enrich this section. Authors: Dear Professor, we have revised this section and highlighted the changes in the manuscript. Why 6 months? a trauma for last 8 months may also affect performance of my hand. Authors: We thank you for this valuable comment. Following your suggestion, the exclusion period has been extended to one year to ensure full recovery and minimize any residual effects on hand function. It should be noted that only one participant reported a previous hand injury and was therefore excluded from the study. This revision has been incorporated and highlighted in the manuscript. How did you select participants? How physically were they fit? What measure was used to test or ascertain physical fitness. Authors: Great comment. It is added and highlighted in the manuscript. Repetitive citation. Reference 11 is Carcia, yet you cited Garcia. Secondly, you can either choose to use one referencing style, Either Havard, or APA, or Vancouva. Just be consistent. Authors: It is done. All is AI-generated. Authors: Dear Professor, it is don and highlighted in the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to the comment1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336916.r002
24 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Hasan Sozen, Editor Dear Dr. Hatefi, 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 Dec 08 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 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. 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, Hasan Sozen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 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??> 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 Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? No. Please state whether the data has been deposited in a public database / repository and indicate the data accessing license policies, which in this case should not be more restrictive than the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Alyao Oscar Simon Reviewer #2: Yes: James Arinaitwe ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336916.r003
Revision 2
24 Oct 2025 Author Response We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The full dataset underlying the findings of this study has now been deposited in the Zenodo repository and is publicly available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. The data can be accessed at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17436917 The Data Availability Statement in the revised manuscript has been updated accordingly. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response_to_the_comment1_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336916.r004
2 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Hasan Sozen, Editor Defining Upper Extremity Dominance: The Contributions of Hand Preference and Grip Strength PONE-D-25-36856R2 Dear Dr. Hatefi, 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, Hasan Sozen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: All comments have been fully addressed, and I believe the manuscript is ready for publication. I appreciate the authors for the time and resources they invested to ensure their work see merit. Thanks. ****** 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: Alyao Oscar Simon ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336916.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Hasan Sozen, Editor PONE-D-25-36856R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hatefi, 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 Assoc. Prof. Hasan Sozen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336916.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .