Dear Dr. van Hinsbergen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . 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 . 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 . 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,

Carlo Meloro

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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.

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):

This is a good paper quite rich in text. I recommend streamlining the longest sections maybe using sub-headings. I found particularly hard to follow the:

Section 3. plate and orogen reconstruction approach;

Section 5. A brief synopsis of global paleogeography since the Carboniferous

Please reduce text.

As highlighted also by one reviewer the doi figshare file provided in line 743 does not work. Please fix it.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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.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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear authors, it is very interesting work, however there are lots of language and editorial problems throughout the manuscript. 1. Therefore, would you please edit from the abstract to the references?

2. use the researchers in place of 'we'

3.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript will be well cited because it accompanies the release of an update to https://paleolatitude.org/. My comments about the format (missing tables and glitches with supplementary files) should be straightforward to address. I made some suggestions for the authors to consider.

L. 46: 'wholesale rotation of the solid Earth (crust and mantle)' – with respect to what?

L. 63: version 2.0 is mentioned further on; consider mentioning it in the introduction to set the scene.

L. 157 and elsewhere: ref [13] is published but the citation is to a preprint

L. 509: 'This interpretation remains debated [190]'. Many details of section '5. A brief synopsis of global paleogeography since the Carboniferous' (L. 370–529 and Figures 1 and 3) could be subject to debate. One block that caught my eye is the South China sea, which I would place further to the west. This point is not relevant in the context of latitude, but it illustrates that I paid attention to this block because I have worked on it (Young et al., 2019; Marks et al., 2025). I anticipate that other readers may be looking carefully at regions that they are interested in. To alleviate this problem, consider opening the section by mentioning that choices/interpretations have to be made in a global model and that the model is openly available for anyone to modify. In other words, the model (as any model) is likely to be incorrect in some aspects, but it remains useful.

L. 587: 'The (unpublished) paleomagnetic reference frame of Tetley [205]': the reference frame by Tetley et al. (2019) is not a paleomagnetic reference frame, and it is published (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JB017442; https://zenodo.org/records/2638121). The starting point of that reference frame was 'the paleopole database of Torsvik et al. [27]' (L. 587–588). The motivation was to produce a 'geodynamically reasonable' reference frame. Müller et al. (2022) built on the work of Tetley et al. (2019) and called their optimised reference frame a 'mantle reference frame'. Consider making the point somewhere that different reference frames are suitable for different applications: paleomagnetic reference frames for surface observations; mantle reference frames (no-net-rotation, optimised) for mantle processes; and TPW-corrected reference frames for processes related to the evolution of Earth's core.

Fig. 2a: it would be helfpul to explain the relationship between global apparent polar wander path and true polar wander somewhere in the manuscript. The two are presented on the same level in Figure 2a without explanation. True polar wander is briefly explained in the text, but the concept of global apparent polar wander path and its relevance to reference frames is not introduced.

I could find Tables 1, 2 or 3 anywhere in the manuscript.

The provided link to the data did not work: https://doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.31021144. I managed to find this link: https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/Supplementary_Information_to_van_Hinsbergen_et_al_PLoS_One_submitted_2026_/31021144?file=60861682.

The GPlates project points to a cpt file that is not included (see screenshot).

There is a problem with the packaging of the files in the GPlates project provided in supplement: the rotations would not apply to the data in the project (see screenshots at 160 Ma and 320 Ma with projections similar to that used in Figures 1 and 3).

Nicolas Flament, Wollongong, 19 February 2026

Reviewer #3: This research paper entitled “Paleolatitude.org 3.0: a calculator for paleoclimate and paleobiology studies based on a new global paleogeography model,” presents updates to the Paleolatitude.org calculator. These updates include a global paleogeographic model with GPlates reconstruction files extending back to 320 Ma, restoration of paleogeographic units in orogenic belts, and a more precise paleomagnetic reference frame with updated statistical procedures. A new, user-friendly interface supports batch processing and data export. Additionally, to illustrate differences with previous reconstructions, the paper demonstrates the calculation of a Late Jurassic paleolatitudinal biodiversity gradient using a bootstrap approach to propagate uncertainties in paleolatitude and age. These improvements enhance the tool's accuracy and usability, and I recommend publication with minor revisions.

My main comments are as follows:

1. Line 6: The position of the corresponding author should be marked with an asterisk (*).

2. Line 19: The corresponding author's email should be written according to the journal's requirements: * d.j.j.vanhinsbergen@uu.nl.

3. Lines 48–49: For -oceanography and -biology, it is recommended to use the full words.

4. Line 50: Change [2-5] to [2–5]. It is recommended to replace the hyphen (-) in the references in the text with the en dash (–) as required by the journal format.

5. Lines 50–53: I recommended to rewrite this sentence.

6. Lines 97, 362, 387: Change “Figure 1:”, “Figure 2:”, “Figure 3.”, and “Figure 4.” to “Fig 1.”, “Fig 2.”, “Fig 3.”, and “Fig 4.”.

7. Line 323: Change “Table 1:” to “Table 1.”.

8. Lines 181–182: “Tibetan Plateau” is recommended to be written as “Tibetan Plateau (Qinghai-Xizang Plateau)”, and “Tien Shan” is recommended to be written as “Tian Shan”.

9. In the text, figure titles should be abbreviated: for example, "Figure 3" should be "Fig 3"; "Fig. 8" should be "Fig 8"; "Figures 1 and 3" should be "Figs 1 and 3". The journal PLOS One uses "Fig X." for figure titles, and "Figure" in the main text should be abbreviated to "Fig".

10. The supplementary tables S1–S5 appear not to be cited in the main text.

11. Line 607: Change “Figure 6a” to “Fig 6A”; Line 618: Change “Figure 6c” to “Fig 6C”; Line 659: Change “Figure 7a” to “Fig 7A”; Line 664: Change “Figure 7b” to “Fig 7B”; Line 658: Change “Figure 1d” to “Fig 1D”. The Figs 1A, 1B and 1C; Fig 6B are not referenced.

12. I recommended to standardize the spelling of certain words throughout the text, for example, "paleo-" versus "palaeo-".

13. I recommended to standardize the labeling letters (e.g., a, b, c) under all images in the article, using either all uppercase or all lowercase consistently to avoid mixing cases.

14. Please check the formatting of the main text to ensure it complies with the journal's requirements.

15. Please check the citation format of all references; for those with DOI, include the DOI link: references with DOI should include "https://doi.. ..." at the beginning.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:Nicolas FlamentNicolas FlamentNicolas FlamentNicolas Flament

Reviewer #3: 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.]

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: error.jpg

Attachment

Submitted filename: image_160.00Ma.png

Attachment

Submitted filename: image_320.00Ma.png

Paleolatitude.org 3.0: a calculator for paleoclimate and paleobiology studies based on a new global paleogeography model

PONE-D-26-01713R1

Dear Dr. van Hinsbergen,

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  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  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,

Carlo Meloro

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All good, please ensure to incorporate one of reviewers minor point and update the right figshare link.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

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.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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: All but one of my comments have been addressed.

It would be helfpul to explain the relationship between global apparent polar wander path and true polar wander somewhere in the manuscript (perhaps the first time the concept of global apparent polar wander path is introduced?).

Some text has been added to provide some background about reference frames and about global tectonic reconstructions. I think these are good additions.

The tables are now there, the links have been fixed and the GPlates rotation file now works.

I had assumed the reference was to Tetley et al. (2019), but I can now see that it was to Mike Tetley's PhD thesis.

I had meant to comment on the (longitudinal) location of the South China block during early Permian times, but had forgotten to mention the period of interest. This comment is not important in the context of paleolatitudes.

Nicolas Flament, Wollongong, 4 March 2026

Reviewer #3: The authors made detailed revisions based on the reviewers' suggestions. I suggest publishing this manuscript.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #2: Yes:Nicolas FlamentNicolas FlamentNicolas FlamentNicolas Flament

Reviewer #3: No

**********