Dear Dr. Sawayama,

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.

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

Apart from addressing the reviewers comments, make sure you address the following points.

1. The study includes only 21 participants, limiting generalizability. Additional details on participant demographics (age, gender balance, prior drone/AR experience) would strengthen the context for interpreting results. In order to justify the participants size, I suggest to review this article "Perceptions on safety climate: a case study in the Omani construction industry".

2. The discussion acknowledges the use of 2D projections, but more analysis of how 3D projections or real-world deployment might alter findings would add depth. See this recent study which consider a number of technical features "Applications of drones for safety inspection in the Gulf Cooperation Council construction".

3. The highly controlled laboratory environment (green screen, stickers) may not reflect real-world drone operation. A clearer discussion of ecological validity and potential field applications would enhance impact. Suggest to review this article for validation "Developing a safety climate assessment tool for Omani construction industry"

4. While factor analysis and t/Wilcoxon tests are described, reporting effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d) and confidence intervals would improve transparency and allow readers to assess practical significance. I suggest to review this document which provide a number statistical analysis which could be useful in your study "Developing toolkits and guidelines to improve safety performance in the construction industry in Oman"

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 13 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Tariq Umar, PhD, CEng, EUR ING, MICE, FHEA

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. 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.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 1 and 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figures.

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 Authors,

Your paper has been reviewed by two independent reviewers and have recommended a major revision. I therefore invite you to address the reviewers comments along with the editor comments and submit a revise version of the paper for consideration. Apart from addressing the reviewers comments, make sure you address the following points.

1. The study includes only 21 participants, limiting generalizability. Additional details on participant demographics (age, gender balance, prior drone/AR experience) would strengthen the context for interpreting results. In order to justify the participants size, I suggest to review this article "Perceptions on safety climate: a case study in the Omani construction industry".

2. The discussion acknowledges the use of 2D projections, but more analysis of how 3D projections or real-world deployment might alter findings would add depth. See this recent study which consider a number of technical features "Applications of drones for safety inspection in the Gulf Cooperation Council construction".

3. The highly controlled laboratory environment (green screen, stickers) may not reflect real-world drone operation. A clearer discussion of ecological validity and potential field applications would enhance impact. Suggest to review this article for validation "Developing a safety climate assessment tool for Omani construction industry"

4. While factor analysis and t/Wilcoxon tests are described, reporting effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d) and confidence intervals would improve transparency and allow readers to assess practical significance. I suggest to review this document which provide a number statistical analysis which could be useful in your study "Developing toolkits and guidelines to improve safety performance in the construction industry in Oman"

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. This article investigates the use of AR for object appearance assessment. The work however, has rooms to improve before it can be considered for possible publication with the journal PLOS One.

2. A large number of participants are engaged in the experiment designed. Better control and experiment design should be conducted to provide more objective comparison.

3. The novelty of the study should be much better highlighted in the abstract. Contributions and limitations of the research should be better discussed as well in the Conclusion.

4. There are 25 reference papers cited in the article which is in the low end. Among 25 reference papers, only 6 of them are published after 2020.

5. The accuracy of the AR projection or alignment is something of interesting that should be discussed in more detail. Also, drone flighting is a dynamic process highly related to robotic path planning. Some further elaboration is expected.

6. Most of the photos should be rotated by 90 degree clockwise to allow easier reading.

7. The state-of-the-art below can help readers better understand the complexity of the research:

- Xu P., et al (2025). SafeSpect: Safety-First Augmented Reality Heads-up Display for Drone Inspections. CHI 2025, Yokohama, Japan.

- Souravik D. et al (2020), Automatic re-planning of lifting paths for robotized tower cranes in dynamic BIM environments, Automation in Construction 110, 102998, ISSN 0926-5805, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102998.

Reviewer #2: While the study is intriguing, still there are several aspects that need to be strengthened for the paper to be suitable for publication. Below are detailed suggestions that may improve the manuscript:

The authors should clarify the novelty of the work. Since, the studies are already existing for the selected problems. So, the authors should state clearly about the unique work. Also, the authors should clarify the challenges with the existing practices for the chosen problem.

Comparative analysis is needed to explore the uniqueness of the proposed work. Since, the existing literature is exploring similar studies.

The motivation of the work is not clear in the introduction section. I suggest the authors restructure and emphasize the proposed work.

Please clarify, how does AR-modified drone appearance influence user perceptions of drone friendliness and approachability? Which visual attributes (color, size, shape, texture) most significantly impact user operational behavior?

How do different AR-projected objects affect the perceived personality or intent of drones? Does AR-modified appearance affect users’ trust in drones during navigation and task execution?

How do demographic factors (age, gender, cultural background) influence perception and behavior toward AR-modified drones? Can AR modifications reduce user anxiety or fear associated with drones in close proximity?

How does AR appearance impact users’ willingness to interact with drones in shared spaces? Are there measurable differences in drone operation efficiency (e.g., speed, accuracy) when AR-modified?

How does repeated exposure to AR-modified drones influence long-term user behavior and perception? Do AR modifications affect social evaluation factors such as anthropomorphism or animal likeness?

Can AR appearance adjustments increase drone acceptance in sensitive environments (e.g., schools, hospitals)? How do users perceive risk differently with different AR-modified drone appearances?

Does AR modification affect user cooperation in multi-drone environments? Are there differences in task performance or errors when drones carry different AR projections?

Can AR appearance serve as a communication tool for drone intentions (e.g., signaling stopping, direction changes)? Which AR projection methods (headset-based, screen-based, projector-based) provide the most stable drone visualization?

How can AR projections maintain alignment with drones in high-speed motion? What are the latency requirements for real-time AR appearance updates on moving drones?

How can drone sensors and AR systems be integrated for dynamic appearance adaptation? What algorithms can predict optimal AR object placement for improved user perception?

How does environmental lighting affect AR object visibility and realism on drones? What metrics can quantify the accuracy of AR projection on 3D drone surfaces?

How can AR projection systems handle multiple users with different viewpoints simultaneously? What hardware and computational requirements are needed for real-time rendering of AR objects?

Stated Literature is shallow. The authors are suggested to review more new and relevant research to support their research contribution. The recent state of art keywords related to other immersive technologies; Challenges and opportunities on AR/VR technologies for manufacturing systems in the context of industry 4.0, Augmented reality-based guidance in product assembly and maintenance/repair perspective: A state of the art review on challenges and opportunities. Augmented reality guided autonomous assembly system: A novel framework for assembly sequence input validations and creation of virtual content for AR instructions development.

The relevant other keywords: Augmented reality aided object mapping for worker assistance/training in an industrial assembly context: AR/VR assisted integrated framework of autonomous disassembly system for industrial products

How can the system detect and correct misalignment or drift of AR objects on moving drones? Can machine learning optimize AR appearance based on user feedback or interaction data?

How can AR modifications be standardized across different drone sizes and models? How can AR systems balance visual fidelity with battery consumption and drone flight performance?

What methods can assess the real-time influence of AR projections on user behavior? How can AR systems dynamically adjust drone appearance to avoid occlusions or visual interference in complex environments?

**********

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: Eswaran MEswaran MEswaran MEswaran M

**********

[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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Sawayama,

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 Feb 12 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,

Tariq Umar, PhD, CEng, EUR ING, MICE, FHEA

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Author(s),

The revised paper has now been reviewed by two independent reviewers. You can see one reviewer has recommended the paper but the other one have some additional comments. I therefore invite you to consider these comments and revise the paper accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Comments are addressed by the authors. No more comments. manuscript improved in the current version. This can be accepted.

Reviewer #3: 1. The manuscript addresses an interesting and underexplored topic: the influence of AR-based appearance modification on drone perception and operation.

2. The experimental setup is carefully designed, ethically approved, and well documented.

3. The study provides useful empirical evidence showing that AR-projected objects influence social and appearance-related perceptions without negatively affecting operational performance.

4. The use of AR to dynamically modify the appearance of real, fast-moving drones represents a novel contribution compared to prior AR–drone studies that focus mainly on interfaces or virtual drones.

5. The combination of quantitative controller-operation metrics with subjective and open-ended perceptual evaluations strengthens the contribution.

6. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer articulation of its novelty relative to prior AR-based drone visualization and acceptance studies in the Introduction and Discussion. Please refer:: Challenges and opportunities on AR/VR technologies for manufacturing systems:: AR/VR assisted integrated framework of autonomous disassembly system.

7. The experimental design, task structure, counterbalancing, and choice of metrics are appropriate for the stated research question.

8. The use of factor analysis is justified; however, the manuscript reports extensive factor loadings and statistical details that may not all be necessary in the main text.

9. The limited sample size (n = 21) is acceptable for an exploratory study but should be more clearly framed as such earlier in the manuscript.

10. The Results section is comprehensive but overly detailed, with repeated descriptions of statistical outcomes across text, tables, and figures.

11. Several tables (e.g., detailed factor loadings and effect-size tables) could be moved to Supplementary Material to improve readability.

12. Greater emphasis on high-level trends rather than exhaustive numerical reporting would strengthen clarity.

13. The Discussion provides reasonable explanations for why AR-based appearance modification affected perception but not operational behavior.

14. The potential influence of using 2D projections instead of 3D AR could be discussed more explicitly as a limiting factor.

15. The comparison with related work is appropriate, but the implications for real-world drone deployment could be synthesized more concisely.

16. The Conclusion appropriately summarizes the findings but could be shortened by reducing methodological repetition.

17. Future work is well motivated; however, it may be beneficial to more clearly separate near-term extensions (e.g., 3D AR projection) from long-term research directions (e.g., multi-drone scenarios).

18. The manuscript is generally well written, though minor grammatical errors and formatting inconsistencies are present.

19. Repetition of certain sentences and phrases should be reduced, particularly in the Introduction and Results sections.

20. Terminology should be reviewed for consistency (e.g., “appearance modification,” “object projection,” “AR projection”).

**********

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: No

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.

Enhancing user perception and drone flight control through AR-based object projection

PONE-D-25-33316R2

Dear Dr. Sawayama,

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,

Ajay Kumar Vyas

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):