-->PONE-D-25-36046-->-->A Study of the Limitations of Musical Experience in Ancient Chinese Poetry—The Case of the Creation Concert of Wei's Music Score-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xie,

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.-->-->

The reviewers and I acknowledge the merit of your work. However, we have decided that your manuscript requires major revisions before it can be accepted for publication. The reviewers have provided constructive feedback, primarily concerning the methodology, language, and scientific rigor of the study. I concur with their suggestions.

Therefore, I invite you to prepare and submit a revised version of your manuscript. Please address all the reviewers' comments in detail, and include a point-by-point response to their critiques in your cover letter.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 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.

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,

Jie Zeng, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Anhui Provincial Department of Education Cultivation Program for Excellent and Top-notch Talents in Colleges and Universities (Key Project of Support Program for Excellent Young Talents in Colleges and Universities) (Number:gxyqZD2022087)；Anhui Provincial Department of Education 2023 Annual College Ancient Book Arrangement Research Project (Number:2023AHGJ04)；Anhui College of the Arts “Classroom Excellence” Project: Ancient Genealogy Poetry Creation and Performance Planning (Number:2025xjzykt11).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

5. 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.

6. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a participant.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

Please respond by return e-mail with an amended manuscript. We can upload this to your submission on your behalf.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, please either instruct us to remove the figure or supply a replacement figure by return e-mail for which you hold the relevant copyright permissions and subject consents. In some cases, you may need to specify in the text that the image used in the figure is not the original image used in the study, but a similar image used for illustrative purposes only. We can make any changes on your behalf.

7. 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.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: “The manuscript employs the ‘leisure constraints/constraints–negotiation’ framework to examine constraints on the experience of ancient-score poetry, combining audience surveys from three ‘Wei’s Scores’ concerts and analyzing the data with PLS-SEM. The topic is innovative and relevant to cultural heritage; the materials are novel; and preliminary results suggest pathways through which intrapersonal and structural constraints affect preference and participation, offering some academic and practical value. However, there is considerable room for improvement in research design transparency, scale development and validation, statistical reporting standards, language and scholarly expression, and compliance with ethics and data sharing. A major revision is recommended before re-review.

1. Insufficient standardization and testability of research questions and hypotheses

The research hypotheses are listed at the end of Section 2 but are inconsistent with the model annotations, and it is not stated whether ‘negotiation’ was measured, indicating a theory–measurement inconsistency (lines 117–136, 137–138). Recommendation: Consolidate testable hypotheses at the end of the Introduction or the start of Methods, ensure one-to-one correspondence with the paths in Figure 1, and standardize terminology boundaries (preference/participation/satisfaction and the three types of constraints).

2. Scale development and psychometric evidence need to be completed and standardized The origins of the scales and the item development process are not described. For example, there is no information on the item pool, proportions of adapted vs. self-developed items, expert review, pilot testing, or item screening criteria (lines 189–197). The measurement model reporting is incomplete. The paper provides only some loadings, α, CR, AVE, and VIF. Please add the full item lists for each latent construct, means/variances of standardized loadings, 95% CIs for α/CR/AVE, HTMT and the cross-loading matrix; explain any item deletions and the reasons (lines 226–239, 240–247, and the pages containing Tables 2 and 3, lines 229–246). Construct operationalization shows domain drift. Participation includes items like “number of classical concerts,” which are not fully domain-consistent with “participation in ancient-score poetry”; see Table 2 items “Your average number of concerts per year” and “The average number of times you listen to classical music concerts per year.” Scale language quality issues. There is substantial Chinglish and unnatural phrasing that affects comprehension and the interval-scale assumption, appearing throughout the manuscript, notably in the abstract and the items in Table 2 (lines 7–29, 229–246).

3. Sampling/procedure transparency and representativeness Sampling and procedures are unclear. The sources of audiences for the three concerts, inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment channels, online/offline questionnaire ratio, and quality control (de-duplication, response time, attention checks) are not specified (lines 140–161, 164–187, 194–201). Remove Figure 2; it does not support the study. Sample representativeness issues. Military personnel account for 44.4%, indicating significant bias; the 300 general-public respondents recruited via the official WeChat account constitute a self-selected sample. The boundaries of external validity should be honestly stated and discussed (lines 164–175, 209–223, and p. 24, lines 173–187).

4. PLS-SEM analysis and reporting standards The rationale for choosing PLS is insufficient. Justify based on sample size, model complexity, and a prediction-oriented goal, and specify software version, algorithm, number of bootstrap resamples, and type of confidence interval (lines 226–236). Please add that SmartPLS 4 was used, and provide the missing details. Structural model quality indicators are incomplete. Q², f², PLSpredict, and VIFs for endogenous independent variables are missing; interpreting R² > 0.02 as “high” is inappropriate—especially for Satisfaction where R² = 0.038, which calls for discussion of measurement or theoretical reasons (lines 267–273, Table 4). Path coefficients are inconsistent. In the figure, Structural → Participate is −0.086, while Table 5 reports −0.28. Unify these based on bootstrap statistics; Figure 3 still contains residual phrases like “Assuming it’s true/Assumptions are not valid” (lines 237–239; Table 5; lines 274–276; pp. 20–21).

5. Causal and generalization claims in Results/Discussion Causal caution is insufficient. Given a convenience sample and no control design, the paths represent covariation only; avoid causal and policy-oriented extrapolations. The abstract, discussion, and conclusion contain multiple overstated claims (lines 7–27, 275–291, 443–472, 480–497). Mechanisms and mediation. The Participation → Satisfaction path is non-significant, while Preference → Participation is significant. Test the indirect effect or moderation of Preference, and acknowledge that the unmeasured ‘negotiation’ dimension represents a theory–measurement gap (lines 254–266, 274–276).

6. Writing and scholarly expression There is Chinglish and mixed terminology in the title, abstract, and throughout (e.g., “Leisure Restricted Class Modeling,” “ancient genealogy/ancient spectrum”); professional English editing and terminological unification are recommended (short title and keywords on p. 1; lines 7–29; items in lines 189–201). Avoid promotional statements beyond the study’s scope (e.g., “music therapy”); trim grand narratives and slogan-like passages, and focus on evidence-supported claims (lines 335–353, 488–497). The references contain duplicates, author–year inconsistencies, and incomplete translation/journal details. Standardize formatting per the journal’s English style and deduplicate (lines 548–551, 570–573, 600–607, 612–616).”

Reviewer #2: The manuscript explores the integration of ancient Chinese poetry with musical performance and immersive art activities—an innovative and culturally meaningful endeavor. Collaborations with museums, along with the use of guided listening sessions, workshops, and modern technology, enhance the value of the study. A reasonable number of valid survey responses were collected, and the application of Smart- PLS 4 to assess reliability and validity represents a solid analytical approach.

However, several methodological limitations should be noted. The sampling strategy, which relied exclusively on concert attendees, may compromise representativeness and introduce self-selection bias. Although factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) were reported, the threshold of α > 0.6 is considered lenient, and evidence for discriminant validity remains insufficient. More rigorous statistical reporting—including hypothesis testing and effect sizes—would strengthen the analysis. The absence of a control group also limits the ability to make causal inferences. Furthermore, in accordance with PLOS data policy, it is unclear whether the complete raw data have been made publicly available; this should be explicitly addressed.

The manuscript is clearly written and generally in acceptable English, though some sections could benefit from improved conciseness and clarity. Overall, the study shows promise, but revisions focusing on methodological rigor, statistical depth, and data transparency would enhance its scholarly contribution.

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-36046.pdf

A Study of the Limitations of Musical Experience in Ancient Chinese Poetry—The Case of the Creation Concert of Wei's Music Score

PONE-D-25-36046R1

Dear Dr. Panjie Xie,

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,

Jie Zeng, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The third reviewer has recommended acceptance; however, he or she noted that some minor revisions are still required. Please carefully revise your manuscript accordingly before submitting the final version.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. 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: Thank you for the revised submission and the detailed point-by-point response. While I appreciate the effort to address reviewer and editorial concerns, I do not think the manuscript reaches the methodological and reporting standards required for publication in PLOS ONE. My recommendation is reject, primarily due to persistent internal inconsistencies, unresolved theory–measurement misalignment, and incomplete compliance with key journal requirements.

1) Theory–measurement misalignment remains unresolved

The manuscript is framed within a “leisure constraints/constraint-negotiation” tradition, yet it remains unclear whether negotiation is actually measured or modeled. This represents a fundamental disconnect between the stated theoretical framework and the implemented measurement/structural model. In the response you acknowledge this gap but do not correct it by either (a) measuring negotiation and testing its role (including indirect effects/mediation as suggested), or (b) revising the theoretical framing and claims so that negotiation is not presented as part of the explanatory mechanism. This problem affects interpretability of the entire model.

2) Scale development and construct validity are still not sufficiently transparent or convincing

You state that the constraints scale was developed using Churchill (1979) procedures and reduced from 22 to 20 items after expert discussion and a preliminary survey. However, the manuscript still lacks essential details needed for reproducibility and psychometric evaluation (e.g., item pool generation process, proportion of adapted vs. newly developed items, expert panel composition/criteria, pilot sample size, explicit decision rules for deletion beyond “low relevance and selection frequency”).

More importantly, the domain drift problem for “Participation” remains: items such as “your average number of concerts per year” and “the average number of times you listen to classical music concerts per year” do not clearly operationalize participation in ancient musical-notation poetry experiences and therefore threaten content validity. This issue was explicitly raised and has not been substantively resolved.

3) Statistical reporting problems raise concerns about result credibility

Although the response claims that reporting has been standardized and that additional indices (e.g., Q², f², VIF) were added, the revised materials provided still show major presentation problems that prevent verification. For example, the discriminant validity table appears corrupted/misaligned and is not interpretable as presented. When core validity evidence cannot be clearly checked, the measurement model cannot be evaluated to PLOS ONE standards.

In addition, you describe bootstrap settings in the response (e.g., 10,000 subsamples, BCa CIs), but the manuscript needs to be fully consistent and transparent about the exact estimation settings used for all reported results.

4) Writing and scholarly tone remain problematic in key places

Despite claims of professional editing, the abstract and parts of the manuscript still contain highly promotional, overgeneralized claims and non-standard phrasing that undermine scholarly clarity (e.g., assertions about cultural self-confidence and broad societal impacts not directly supported by the model and sampling approach). The paper would require substantial rewriting for precision, cautious inference, and terminology standardization.

Reviewer #2: The authors have demonstrated exceptional academic rigor in addressing the feedback from the previous review cycle. The manuscript has significantly evolved from its original version into a technically sound and well-structured study that bridges "Leisure Constraints Theory" with the preservation of cultural heritage. Key Technical Improvements: Regarding statistical robustness, the authors have provided comprehensive evidence for the PLS-SEM analysis, including necessary metrics such as HTMT, VIF, $f^2$, and $Q^2$. The use of 5,000 Bootstrap runs with BCa confidence intervals ensures the stability and reliability of the path coefficients. In terms of data integrity and transparency, the rectification of demographic data (correcting the student vs. military classification error) and the detailed description of the sampling procedure, specifically the random reservation model, have resolved previous concerns regarding data bias and representativeness. Furthermore, the conceptual alignment has been strengthened as the research hypotheses are now clearly defined and show a one-to-one correspondence with the structural model, effectively addressing the "negotiation" measurement gap identified previously. Scholarly Presentation: The manuscript has undergone professional editing, resulting in clear and unambiguous academic English. The removal of nearly 1,000 words of non-academic narrative has significantly enhanced the professional tone and flow of the paper. Regarding discussion depth, the authors have appropriately re-evaluated the $R^2$ values and adopted a more cautious approach toward causal inferences, acknowledging the inherent limitations of cross-sectional field studies.

Reviewer #3: Overall Evaluation

This study applies leisure constraints theory to ancient poetry experience, and the topic is interesting. The research methods are appropriate, the data analysis is generally sound, and the overall structure is clear. However, the manuscript still needs improvement in methodological reporting and result interpretation. Below are specific suggestions for the final polishing stage.

Suggestions

1. Sample size justification

The authors did not explain how the sample size was determined. PLS-SEM typically follows the 10-times rule, which means the sample should exceed 10 times the largest number of paths pointing to a single construct. Please clarify whether the sample of 411 meets this requirement.

2. Causal language

The manuscript uses the word “influence” in several sections. Because this study relies on cross-sectional data, it can only demonstrate correlations rather than direct causality. Please replace “influence” with terms such as “predict” or “correlate with” in some expressions.

3. Model explanatory power

The R² values for preference (0.062) and satisfaction (0.038) are low. The authors’ explanation is reasonable, but the discussion could be expanded to acknowledge potential omitted variables, such as cultural capital or prior poetry exposure.

4. Sentence length

Some sentences are too long. Breaking them into shorter sentences would improve readability.

Summary

The study is methodologically sound and the conclusions are credible. With improvements in reporting, interpretation, and language, the manuscript will be stronger. Please make these revisions during the final polishing stage.

**********

-->7. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments Manuscript ID [PONE-D-25-36046R1].docx