Cultural transmission of attitudes and behaviours from parents, peers and grandparents

Monica Tamariz; Bradley Walker; Matthew Bennett; José Segovia-Martín; Nicolas Fay

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341433

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 11, 2025
17 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Francesco Flaviano Russo, Editor Dear Dr. Tamariz Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I recieved two referee reports recommending revisions. 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 01 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. 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, Francesco Flaviano Russo 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. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr. Tamariz I have received two referee reports recommending a revision of the paper. I invite you to revise the paper along the lines suggested by both of them, and to resubmit the paper. Best, Francesco Flaviano Russo [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: Referee Report Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-34652 Title: Cultural transmission of attitudes and behaviours from parents, peers and grandparents Journal: PLOS ONE Overall Recommendation: Major Revision General Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study presents a large-scale, multi-method conceptual replication and extension of the seminal work by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1982). The ambition of the project is commendable, and the dataset of nearly 6000 individuals is a significant strength that provides considerable power. The application of modern analytical techniques (path analysis, Monte Carlo simulations) to the classic question of cultural transmission pathways is a valuable contribution to the field. The manuscript is generally well-structured, the analytical methods are sophisticated and mostly well-described, and the results are presented clearly. The discussion thoroughly engages with the complex, multifactorial nature of cultural resemblance. However, I have significant concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings due to the sampling strategy and what I perceive as an occasional overinterpretation of the correlational data. The claims of novelty, particularly regarding replication of Cavalli Sforza may need to be tempered. Addressing these concerns would significantly strengthen the manuscript and its contribution to the literature. Major Comments: 1. Sampling and Generalizability: The use of a convenience sample of university students from a single Australian institution introduces substantial selection bias (age, socioeconomic status, education level, cultural background). While this method is pragmatic for recruiting social networks, it severely limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader population. The pronounced gender imbalance (72.2% women in the student sample) further compounds this issue. The manuscript should more explicitly and prominently acknowledge this limitation throughout, particularly in the abstract and discussion, and caution against claims of describing "contemporary populations" without qualification. 2. Claims of Novelty and Replication: The assertion that this is a replication study, potentially framed as the "first," is inaccurate. The work of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1982) has spawned an entire field of cultural evolution, with countless studies testing, applying, and refining its models (e.g., the work of Boyd, Richerson, Henrich, and others). The literature review, while good, does not adequately frame this study within that extensive existing body of work. The manuscript's valuable contribution is not as the first replication but as a large-scale, modern replication with an extended social network (grandparents) and advanced methods. The language should be revised to reflect this more accurate positioning. 3. Interpretation and Causal Language: The discussion is comprehensive but at times risks overinterpreting the correlational data. Although the authors correctly note on page 39 that the study does not test causal mechanisms, the subsequent discussion frequently uses causal language ("transmission," "influence," "exert influence") when discussing results. While these terms are standard in the field, the manuscript would benefit from a more consistent and cautious phrasing that emphasizes the interpretation of patterns of resemblance for which transmission is one of several plausible mechanisms. The discussion of mechanisms (genetics, homophily, transmission) is excellent but should be framed more consistently as speculative interpretation rather than established conclusion. 4. Response Rate and Attrition Bias: The manuscript does not explicitly state the response rate for the recruitment of family and friends by the student participants. Furthermore, the exclusion of 722 student networks because they contained no family or friends potentially introduces a significant attrition bias. These excluded students may systematically differ from those in the analyzed networks (e.g., weaker family ties, international students). This potential bias should be acknowledged as a limitation. Minor Comments: Methods (Factor Analysis): Please consider reporting common fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, CFI) for the factor analysis solution to provide a standard measure of how well the 8-factor model fits the data. Methods (Additive Model): The dichotomization of continuous factor scores, while faithful to the original 1982 method, is a loss of information. A brief sentence acknowledging this as a limitation of this particular analysis would be appropriate. Discussion (Readability): The discussion is highly informative but very dense. I strongly suggest adding a summary table that lists the key findings for each major factor (e.g., Religiosity, Politics) and the authors' leading hypothesized explanation for the observed resemblance (e.g., "Vertical transmission + genetic heritability"; "Spouse similarity: Assortative mating"). This would greatly enhance clarity and readability. Data Availability: The data is stated to be on OSF, but the provided link (https://osf.io/v8hc7) in the text points to a project that is not found (404 error). This must be corrected before publication. Suggested Revisions: Abstract & Introduction: Temper claims of novelty and replication. Rephrase to highlight the study as a large-scale, modern extension. Methods (Section 2.1): Add a paragraph explicitly discussing the limitations of the student convenience sample and the potential attrition bias from excluding disconnected networks. Results: Ensure all links in the data availability statement are functional. Discussion: Begin the discussion with a paragraph that explicitly lists the main limitations: the correlational design, the sampling strategy, and the attendant restrictions on generalizability and causal inference. Consistently use cautious language that frames explanations as hypotheses (e.g., "one possible explanation is," "our results are consistent with"). Add a summary table as suggested to organize the key interpretations. Conclusion: Scale back broad generalizations. Clearly state that the findings are most applicable to similar demographic cohorts (Western, educated, young adult populations). Final Judgment: The study presents a valuable dataset and a robust set of analyses. However, the issues of sampling, generalizability, and framing are substantial and must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. I therefore recommend Major Revision. I am enthusiastic about the potential of this work once these concerns are adequately mitigated and believe it will be a strong contribution to PLOS ONE after revisions. Reviewer #2: 1. The study presents a clear problem that advances the seminal work of Cavalli-Sforza et al in current environment and under much multifactorial perspective to establish the vertical,horizontal and oblique relationships to help understand the cultural transmission of attitudes and behaviours from parents, peers and grandparents. The research gap established are well situated and justified. The undergirding research questions are legitimate and rooted in well grounded theoretical framing in cultural studies central to cultural evolutionary research. 2. The methodological plan and analysis (descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, path analysis and simulation) have been well laid out and every phase including the simulations are academically-rigorous and would enable replication of the study in similar contexts. 3. The discussions of the results are interesting and sound. There are no invalidated claims. There are rich and academically-refreshing comparisons and contradictions of the results in the current study with those in the extant literature which are highly remarkable of the study. However, the discussion would have been enriched if intentional comparison of the study's results in relation to different country contexts are presented rather than a broad or general approach adopted by the authors. 4. I don't know the reason for the silence of the paper on the geographical scope (study area) of the study. I think this would give important contextual understanding of the results. 5. The suggestions for further research are great and offers enough directional paths. I was wondering if the results are not too pre-mature as I belive they are, some realistic recommendations are drawn from the study's results for policy and practice. ****** 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: Marcello D'Amato Reviewer #2: Yes: Dickson Adom ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341433.r001
Revision 1
23 Sep 2025 Author Response (It will be easier to read these responses in the uploaded response to reviewers letter.) Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments. We have addressed each point carefully, indicated the changes made to the manuscript and provided clarifications to explain our decisions. We appreciate the reviewers’ constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript, as well as the cross-cultural outlook. Sincerely, Monica Tamariz Comment Response Editor I have received two referee reports recommending a revision of the paper. I invite you to revise the paper along the lines suggested by both of them, and to resubmit the paper. No response needed Reviewer #1 Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study presents a large-scale, multi-method conceptual replication and extension of the seminal work by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1982). The ambition of the project is commendable, and the dataset of nearly 6000 individuals is a significant strength that provides considerable power. The application of modern analytical techniques (path analysis, Monte Carlo simulations) to the classic question of cultural transmission pathways is a valuable contribution to the field. The manuscript is generally well-structured, the analytical methods are sophisticated and mostly well-described, and the results are presented clearly. The discussion thoroughly engages with the complex, multifactorial nature of cultural resemblance. However, I have significant concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings due to the sampling strategy and what I perceive as an occasional overinterpretation of the correlational data. The claims of novelty, particularly regarding replication of Cavalli Sforza may need to be tempered. Addressing these concerns would significantly strengthen the manuscript and its contribution to the literature. We thank Prof. D’Amato for his careful assessment of our manuscript, positive general comments and praise for the sample size and analyses. We acknowledge the concerns he points out and explain below how we address them. Major comment 1. Sampling and Generalizability: The use of a convenience sample of university students from a single Australian institution introduces substantial selection bias (age, socioeconomic status, education level, cultural background). While this method is pragmatic for recruiting social networks, it severely limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader population. The pronounced gender imbalance (72.2% women in the student sample) further compounds this issue. The manuscript should more explicitly and prominently acknowledge this limitation throughout, particularly in the abstract and discussion, and caution against claims of describing "contemporary populations" without qualification. Suggested revision 2. Methods (Section 2.1): Add a paragraph explicitly discussing the limitations of the student convenience sample and the potential attrition bias from excluding disconnected networks. Suggested revision 7. Scale back broad generalizations. Clearly state that the findings are most applicable to similar demographic cohorts (Western, educated, young adult populations). We now acknowledge these limitations: In the Abstract, “in contemporary populations” has been replaced with “in a contemporary population”. We have added this paragraph in section 2.1, L 233-260: “Our reliance on a student convenience sample limits the generalizability of the findings, as students may differ from the broader population in demographics, network structure, and social experiences. Data from a single Australian university also reflects limited geographical and cultural diversity, which may constrain the applicability of the results to other settings. In addition, there was a notable gender imbalance, with women being overrepresented, which may influence the observed patterns of social transmission. Recruitment of family and friends by student participants was relatively low, with many students not recruiting anyone and, among those who did, most recruiting only a small number of contacts. Finally, excluding networks where no family or friends participated may have introduced attrition bias, potentially underrepresenting socially isolated individuals and networks with different transmission dynamics." Major comment 2. Claims of Novelty and Replication: The assertion that this is a replication study, potentially framed as the "first," is inaccurate. The work of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1982) has spawned an entire field of cultural evolution, with countless studies testing, applying, and refining its models (e.g., the work of Boyd, Richerson, Henrich, and others). The literature review, while good, does not adequately frame this study within that extensive existing body of work. The manuscript's valuable contribution is not as the first replication but as a large-scale, modern replication with an extended social network (grandparents) and advanced methods. The language should be revised to reflect this more accurate positioning. Suggested revision 1. Abstract & Introduction: Temper claims of novelty and replication. Rephrase to highlight the study as a large-scale, modern extension. We have downplayed the replication aspect of our work and the novelty of our questions and data in section “The present study” by greatly simplifying the first paragraph of this section and removing all mentions of replication (L 186-187). We have also specified how our study “builds on” Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman’s work (L 193), and removed an allusion to their work’s limitations (L 193). At the end of the same section, we replaced “novel data” with the weaker “a new, modern data set” (L224). Major comment 3. Interpretation and Causal Language: The discussion is comprehensive but at times risks overinterpreting the correlational data. Although the authors correctly note on page 39 that the study does not test causal mechanisms, the subsequent discussion frequently uses causal language ("transmission," "influence," "exert influence") when discussing results. While these terms are standard in the field, the manuscript would benefit from a more consistent and cautious phrasing that emphasizes the interpretation of patterns of resemblance for which transmission is one of several plausible mechanisms. The discussion of mechanisms (genetics, homophily, transmission) is excellent but should be framed more consistently as speculative interpretation rather than established conclusion. Suggested revision 5. Discussion: Consistently use cautious language that frames explanations as hypotheses (e.g., "one possible explanation is," "our results are consistent with"). We have removed remaining causal terms from the discussion of our results (but have left them in when they refer to reviewed literature that shows causal links), and make our language more cautious: Replacements: L 735 persist --> correlate L 740 mechanisms seem to be at play --> mechanisms could be at play L772 these results could be explained --> might be explained L 786 transmission --> correlation L 797 cultural transmission between the friends may increase convergence --> cultural transmission between the friends may explain high convergence L 806 transmitted --> shared Major comment 4. Response Rate and Attrition Bias: The manuscript does not explicitly state the response rate for the recruitment of family and friends by the student participants. Furthermore, the exclusion of 722 student networks because they contained no family or friends potentially introduces a significant attrition bias. These excluded students may systematically differ from those in the analyzed networks (e.g., weaker family ties, international students). This potential bias should be acknowledged as a limitation. Response rate for recruitment of family and friends is now given as a table in Supplementary Information S1. We have added this to Participants section (L 256): “Recruitment of family and friends by student participants was relatively low, with many students not recruiting anyone and, among those who did, most recruiting only a small number of contacts.” Attrition bias is addressed in this addition to the same section (L 258): “Finally, excluding networks where no family or friends participated may have introduced attrition bias, potentially underrepresenting socially isolated individuals and networks with different transmission dynamics.” Minor comment 1. Methods (Factor Analysis): Please consider reporting common fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, CFI) for the factor analysis solution to provide a standard measure of how well the 8-factor model fits the data. In section Results of factor analysis (L 438-441), we have added: “The factor analysis yielded an eight-factor solution that demonstrated an acceptable overall fit to the data, with good values for the CFI (.95) and RMSEA (.04), and a TLI (.89) that was slightly below the conventional cutoff of .90.” Minor comment 2. Methods (Additive Model): The dichotomization of continuous factor scores, while faithful to the original 1982 method, is a loss of information. A brief sentence acknowledging this as a limitation of this particular analysis would be appropriate. We added (L 376-78): A limitation of this method is the fact that the dichotomization of continuous factor scores, while faithful to the original method (49), involves a loss of information. Minor comment 3. Discussion (Readability): The discussion is highly informative but very dense. I strongly suggest adding a summary table that lists the key findings for each major factor (e.g., Religiosity, Politics) and the authors' leading hypothesized explanation for the observed resemblance (e.g., "Vertical transmission + genetic heritability"; "Spouse similarity: Assortative mating"). This would greatly enhance clarity and readability. Suggested revision 6. Discussion: Add a summary table as suggested to organize the key interpretations. We have included table 11, in line 825: Table 11. Main resemblance patterns within members of the networks observed in our data and main suggested explanations. Factor Main resemblance pattern Main explanation Religiosity, Politics & Environmentalism Strong resemblance across generations and within social networks Early in life: socialisation Later in life: strong genetic heritability Assortative mating / peer selection, environmental structuring Health Resemblance across generations and within social networks Early in life: parenting style, family dynamics Later in life: Strong genetic heritability Music, Reading, Screen, & Social Little resemblance observed Little family and friend influence Minor comment 4. Data Availability: The data is stated to be on OSF, but the provided link (https://osf.io/v8hc7) in the text points to a project that is not found (404 error). This must be corrected before publication. Suggested revision 3. Results: Ensure all links in the data availability statement are functional. The data set is publicly available on OSF. We have checked from different browsers and accounts, and the link seems to work fine for us. Suggested revision 1. Abstract & Introduction: Temper claims of novelty and replication. Rephrase to highlight the study as a large-scale, modern extension. See response to “Major comment 2. “Claims of Novelty and Replication” above. Suggested revision 2. Methods (Section 2.1): Add a paragraph explicitly discussing the limitations of the student convenience sample and the potential attrition bias from excluding disconnected networks. See response to “Major comment 1. “Sampling and Generalizability” above. Suggested revision 4. Discussion: Begin the discussion with a paragraph that explicitly lists the main limitations: the correlational design, the sampling strategy, and the attendant restrictions on generalizability and causal inference. We have replaced the first two paragraphs in the discussion with this paragraph (L689-695): “This study examined patterns of attitudes and behaviours within social networks using a large data set from students (N=1905) and their family and friends (N=4000), each completing a survey that included 27 questions. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution given several limitations. Its correlational design precludes causal conclusions, as observed associations may reflect shared background factors. The reliance on a student convenience sample from a single Australian university, along with gender imbalance and low, uneven recruitment of contacts, also limits generalizability.” Suggested revision 5. Discussion: Consistently use cautious language that frames explanations as hypotheses (e.g., "one possible explanation is," "our results are consistent with"). See response to “Major comment 1. “Sampling and Generalizability” above Suggested revision 6. Discussion: Add a summary table as suggested to organize the key interpretations. See response to “Minor comment 3. Discussion (Readability)” above. Suggested revision 7. Conclusion: Scale back broad generalizations. Clearly state that the findings are most applicable to similar demographic cohorts (Western, educated, young adult populations). See response to “Major comment 1. Sampling and Generalizability” above. Reviewer #2 1. The study presents a clear problem that advances the seminal work of Cavalli-Sforza et al in current environment and under much multifactorial perspective to establish the vertical,horizontal and oblique relationships to help understand the cultural transmission of attitudes and behaviours from parents, peers and grandparents. The research gap established are well situated and justified. The undergirding research questions are legitimate and rooted in well grounded theoretical framing in cultural studies central to cultural evolutionary research. 2. The methodological plan and analysis (descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, path analysis and simulation) have been well laid out and every phase including the simulations are academically-rigorous and would enable replication of the study in similar contexts. 3. The discussions of the results are interesting and sound. There are no invalidated claims. There are rich and academically-refreshing comparisons and contradictions of the results in the current study with those in the extant literature which are highly remarkable of the study. We thank Dr Adom for his careful assessment of our manuscript and his positive comments. We explain below how we address each of his concerns. However, the discussion would have been enriched if intentional comparison of the study's results in relation to different country contexts are presented rather than a broad or general approach adopted by the authors. We have added new references to studies conducted outside western countries for religiosity and political orientation in the discussion, in L 741-751: 75. Lee et al. Parental effects on diet and obesity - 23 countries (high diversity) 55. Milos & Glavas - Parental effects on Religiosity - Croatia 56. Chamratithirong et al. - Parental effects on Religiosity - Thailand 67. Sahertian et al - Parental effects on Religiosity - Indonesia 68. Hong & Lim - Parental socialisation and Political participation - Singapore 4. I don't know the reason for the silence of the paper on the geographical scope (study area) of the study. I think this would give important contextual understanding of the results. The geographical setting is now clearly mentioned in the Participants section: L 231: “from the University of Western Australia (UWA), in Perth, Australia” We acknowledge the limitation inherent to our study related to the homogeneity of our sample. We spell this out by emphasising in several places the fact that our data comes from a single university Australia: L 250 (Methods): “Our reliance on a student convenience sample limits the generalizability of the findings, as students may differ from the broader population in demographics, network structure, and social experiences. Data from a single Australian university also reflects limited geographical and cultural diversity, which may con https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341433.r002
7 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Francesco Flaviano Russo, Editor Cultural transmission of attitudes and behaviours from parents, peers and grandparents PONE-D-25-34652R1 Dear Dr. Tamariz, 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, Francesco Flaviano Russo Academic Editor PLOS One Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: Thank you for satisfactorily addressing the issues I raised and for clarification on the recommendation section. The added references have indeed expanded the dialogue to other regions which would enhance the study's relevance in the scholarship. Thanks and best regards ****** 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 #2: Yes: Dickson Adom ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341433.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Francesco Flaviano Russo, Editor PONE-D-25-34652R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Tamariz, 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 Francesco Flaviano Russo Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341433.r004

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 .