It’s not you, it’s me: A thematic analysis of written causal attributions for favorable and unfavorable feedback on different types of Instagram image sharing

Malinda Desjarlais

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346413

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 12, 2025
22 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Shiva Ram Male, Editor -->PONE-D-25-26407-->-->It's not you, it's me: A thematic analysis of written causal attributions for favorable and unfavorable feedback on different types of Instagram image sharing-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Malinda. 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.--> Kindly go through the suggested revisions Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 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: 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, Shiva Ram Male, M.S, PG.Dipl, 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. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <file name>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address -Ages more specific than whole numbers -Internet protocol (IP) address -Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.) -Contact information such as phone number or email address -Location data -ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. 4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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): Dear Author, Kindly go through the revisions suggested by the Reviewer [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** -->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: your manuscript titled “It’s not you, it’s me: A thematic analysis of written causal attributions for favorable and unfavorable feedback on different types of Instagram image sharing.” This is a timely and thoughtfully designed study that offers valuable insights into how individuals interpret social feedback on self-presentational content across social media platforms. Below are my comments and suggestions aimed at helping you refine and strengthen your manuscript. Major Strengths: Novel Contribution: The manuscript extends attribution theory into the domain of social media feedback, which is relatively underexplored. The focus on real-time personal reactions rather than imagined scenarios is a significant advancement. Methodological Rigor: The experimental use of fabricated feedback and the inclusion of three image types (selfie, elsie, meme) is innovative and well-executed. Thematic Clarity: The reflexive thematic analysis is robust, with well-categorized themes and illustrative participant responses. Integration with Theory: The use of attribution theory, sociometer theory, self-objectification, and self-verification theories helps provide depth to your findings. Suggestions for Improvement: 1. Theoretical Clarity: While self-serving bias is mentioned, the observed deviation (internal attributions even for unfavorable feedback) could benefit from deeper theoretical reflection. Could self-objectification override typical self-protective mechanisms? A more direct engagement with the contradiction between attribution theory and observed patterns would strengthen your discussion. 2. Sample and Generalizability: sample (majority young females) is clearly reported. However, consider expanding the discussion on how this demographic bias may have influenced the attribution patterns, particularly in relation to appearance-based evaluations and societal beauty norms. 3. Interpretation of Meme Feedback: The findings around meme feedback (predominantly external attributions) are intriguing. You may consider further elaboration using the online disinhibition effect or content detachment frameworks to explain this distancing. 4. Perceived Societal Attitudes vs. Attribution: A strong point of your study is that participants acknowledged negative societal perceptions toward selfies but did not attribute unfavorable feedback to those broader norms. This disconnect is important and could be more explicitly explored in the discussion section. Minor Recommendations: 1. Standardize terminology: consider consistently using either “self-images” or “selfies and elsies” for clarity. 2. The methods section includes some repetition (e.g., feedback condition explanations); tightening this would improve flow. 3. Please proofread for minor typographical issues (e.g., "appearancerelated" should be "appearance-related"). 4. A procedural diagram illustrating the study design could enhance reader comprehension. 5. If possible, consider sharing your thematic codebook in the Supporting Information for transparency and reproducibility. Final Remarks i felt: Overall, this is a well-written and engaging manuscript that makes a meaningful contribution to the literature on digital self-presentation and social cognition. I believe it will be of great interest to both psychological and media studies audiences. I recommend very minor revision to address the points above, which will further enhance the clarity and impact of your work. Best regards, Reviewer ****** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. P. Phani Krishna ******** [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.0346413.r001
Revision 1
1 Dec 2025 Author Response A copy of the comments and responses has been uploaded to the system. The following is a copy of that document: Section 1 - Editor Comments 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. Response: The manuscript and file naming has been checked to ensure it meets PLOS ONES’s style requirements. 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. Response: the following (in red) has been added to the manuscript (pages 10-11) to clarify the consent process: Participants arrived at the lab. Participants completed an informed consent process and subsequently provided written consent. In accordance with the institution’s ethical guidelines, university students, irrespective of age, may independently provide informed consent for research participation. Accordingly, parental consent was not required for participants under 18 years of age. 3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <file name>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address -Ages more specific than whole numbers -Internet protocol (IP) address -Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.) -Contact information such as phone number or email address -Location data -ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Response: After reviewing the content of the supplementary information, I felt that it did not contribute meaningfully to the manuscript. These documents simply summarized the characteristics of the participants and their quantitative responses to the questions in a different format that what was presented in the manuscript. Therefore, I decided to remove all the supplementary information documents. If researchers require access to the data to verify the findings the data would be made available upon request (as outlined below). 4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. Response: A complete data file containing all participant responses cannot be shared publicly for ethical reasons. The consent form that participants signed stated that “Your individual responses will not be published in any form.” To comply with the standards approved by the Mount Royal University Human Research Ethics Board, the data file can only be provided upon request by emailing the author directly. These requests must go through the author because Mount Royal University does not have an office responsible for managing such data access. 5. 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. Response: As Supporting Information has been removed, captions are no longer needed. 6. 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. Response: not applicable 7. 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. Response: The references were reviewed and ensure correct. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Author, Kindly go through the revisions suggested by the Reviewer Section 2 - Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: your manuscript titled “It’s not you, it’s me: A thematic analysis of written causal attributions for favorable and unfavorable feedback on different types of Instagram image sharing.” This is a timely and thoughtfully designed study that offers valuable insights into how individuals interpret social feedback on self-presentational content across social media platforms. Below are my comments and suggestions aimed at helping you refine and strengthen your manuscript. Major Strengths: Novel Contribution: The manuscript extends attribution theory into the domain of social media feedback, which is relatively underexplored. The focus on real-time personal reactions rather than imagined scenarios is a significant advancement. Methodological Rigor: The experimental use of fabricated feedback and the inclusion of three image types (selfie, elsie, meme) is innovative and well-executed. Thematic Clarity: The reflexive thematic analysis is robust, with well-categorized themes and illustrative participant responses. Integration with Theory: The use of attribution theory, sociometer theory, self-objectification, and self-verification theories helps provide depth to your findings. Response: Thank you for your support. Suggestions for Improvement: 1. Theoretical Clarity: While self-serving bias is mentioned, the observed deviation (internal attributions even for unfavorable feedback) could benefit from deeper theoretical reflection. Could self-objectification override typical self-protective mechanisms? A more direct engagement with the contradiction between attribution theory and observed patterns would strengthen your discussion. Response: Thank you for pointing this out—I agree that the discussion would benefit from a deeper theoretical reflection. In response, I have expanded the discussion to more thoroughly address the theoretical implications of the findings. The following additions were incorporated into the discussion to strengthen this section: First, the discussion of the pattern “attributing favorable feedback to controllable factors and unfavorable to uncontrollable” was expanded. The following was added to the discussion (pages 20-21): Such attributional tendencies align closely with patterns associated with shame. When negative appearance feedback is received, it is more likely to evoke shame, an emotion rooted in the perception that something is wrong with the whole self rather than with a specific behavior [43]. Shame reliably promotes an attributional pattern characterized by global and uncontrollable causes – perceiving negative outcomes as stemming from broad, stable, and unchangeable personal flaws (e.g., “I’m unattractive,” “There is something wrong with me”) rather than specific, situational factors (e.g., poor lighting or camera angle). These global and uncontrollable attributions have been documented in body and appearance contexts specifically [e.g., 44]. To build on this point, the discussion of participants’ non-use of societal attitudes toward selfies was moved earlier in the discussion section. This shift allowed for a more coherent and theoretically grounded explanation of how self-objectification may have overshadowed typical self-protective mechanisms in this context. Accordingly, the following material was added to the manuscript immediately after the non-use of societal attitudes section of the discussion (pages 21-22): Objectification theory suggests that the internalized perspective manifests as habitual and vigilant self-monitoring of their appearance for flaws [37, 38]. Thus, even when aware of negative societal attitudes toward selfie-posting, individuals may default to appearance-focused internal attributions when their image is evaluated. Additionally, research on the imagined audience shows that social media users think primarily in terms of specific viewers rather than society at large, which is perceived as too distant to be causally relevant [45]. Participants may have viewed the immediate audience, not cultural stereotypes, as the primary evaluators, reducing the likelihood that societal narratives were used as self-protective explanations. Overall, these findings highlight how selfies and elsies shared on SNSs not only makes appearance salient but also fosters internalized appearance evaluation through the nature of the feedback received. When the self is viewed as an object under gaze, situational defences might be less salient or psychological accessible, and traditional self-serving logic may not hold, increasing the likelihood of internalized negative attributions. 2. Sample and Generalizability: sample (majority young females) is clearly reported. However, consider expanding the discussion on how this demographic bias may have influenced the attribution patterns, particularly in relation to appearance-based evaluations and societal beauty norms. Response: Although the sample composition (76% women) was briefly acknowledged in the original discussion, I agree that this demographic imbalance could have influenced participants’ causal attributions, particularly given the relevance of self-objectification theory to appearance-based evaluations. In response, I have integrated this point more explicitly earlier in the discussion. The paragraph (page 20) has been revised accordingly, with the new additions highlighted in red: Women in cultures that place a strong emphasis on appearance are particularly likely to become objectified – treated as objects to be looked at and evaluated based on how they look [37, 38]. Over time, they internalize this external perspective and start viewing and judging their physical appearance from a third-person perspective. Research shows that contexts prompting individuals to consider how others will evaluate their appearance reliably heighten self-objectification during SNS use [39-41]. Experimental research reveals that the act of taking selfies, regardless of whether they are shared, can increase state self-objectification and body dissatisfaction compared to taking photos of objects [26], among men and women [41]. Self-objectification has also been shown to increase among women after receiving favorable appearance-based comments on their selfies [42]. Given that (women) participants believed their selfie or elsie would be shared with an audience comprised of their peers and evaluated for feedback, the study context likely activated this objectifying gaze. As a result, internal causal attributions for social feedback were largely centered on their physical appearance. Additionally, the sample composition is now acknowledged as a limitation of the study. The following was added to the Limitations and future directions section (page 24): As previously noted, the results must be considered in the context of the sample characteristics, particularly the overrepresentation of whom, who comprised 76% of the participants. Prior research suggests that women, particularly in Western cultural contexts, experience higher levels of self-objectification, engage more frequently in appearance-based self-evaluation, and may respond differently to both positive and negative appearance feedback than men. As a result, the attributional patterns observed in this study may reflect gendered experiences of social media use and appearance-related evaluation. Future research should examine whether similar patterns emerge in more gender-balanced samples or in samples that allow for meaningful comparisons across gender and/or cultural identities. 3. Interpretation of Meme Feedback: The findings around meme feedback (predominantly external attributions) are intriguing. You may consider further elaboration using the online disinhibition effect or content detachment frameworks to explain this distancing. Response: Although the online disinhibition effect was mentioned in the original discussion, I agree that it required deeper theoretical consideration in the context of the causal attributions for the meme condition. In response, the section dedicated to the findings for the meme condition has been revised to more fully explain the underlying mechanisms of the online disinhibition effect and how these mechanisms may account f Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346413.r002
20 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Shiva Ram Male, Editor It's not you, it's me: A thematic analysis of written causal attributions for favorable and unfavorable feedback on different types of Instagram image sharing PONE-D-25-26407R1 Dear Dr.Malinda, 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, Shiva Ram Male, M.S, PG.Dipl, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346413.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Shiva Ram Male, Editor PONE-D-25-26407R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Desjarlais, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Shiva Ram Male Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346413.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 .