Comprehensive feature evaluation of the main facades of Catholic churches in Sichuan-Chongqing region based on semantic difference method, 1840–1949

Qin Lai; Xinkai Li; Beibei Zhang; Nan Chen; YunZhang Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0348806

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 29, 2025
15 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Kofi Agyekum, Editor PONE-D-25-67492Comprehensive feature evaluation of the main facades of Catholic churches in Sichuan-Chongqing region based on semantic difference method, 1840-1949PLOS One Dear Dr. Li, 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 check the comments from the two reviewers and pay attention to the critical issues they have raised. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 01 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 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 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, Kofi Agyekum, 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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, Thank you for considering PLOS-ONE for your manuscript. After undergoing reviews, the reviewers agree that the manuscript is well-improved. However, there are some minor issues that must be resolved. Please check the issues they have raised and revise your manuscript as such. I wish you luck with this revision. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy 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? 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 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 is partially sound; conclusions are generally supported but occasionally over-extended. It presents a technically coherent study that applies the semantic difference (SD) method in a systematic and replicable manner. The research design is clearly described, the evaluation dimensions are grounded in prior literature, and the sample size of 62 churches × 50 evaluators (3,100 data points) is adequate for perceptual analysis of this type. Reliability and validity checks (Cronbach’s Alpha, KMO, Bartlett’s test) indicate acceptable to strong internal consistency. The descriptive results and correlation analyses broadly support the authors’ main conclusions regarding: i. The predominance of Western-oriented facade characteristics. ii. The existence of localized Sino–Western hybridization. iii. Positive associations between facade style, decoration, and religious expression. However, some interpretive conclusions particularly those linking facade characteristics to missionary intent, social resistance, or cultural strategy go beyond what the perceptual data alone can substantiate. These claims would require stronger historical or archival triangulation. With more cautious phrasing, the conclusions would be fully aligned with the presented data. The statistical analysis is appropriate for the nature of the data and is generally rigorous: i. The use of Cronbach’s Alpha, KMO, and Bartlett’s test appropriately establishes scale reliability and suitability for multivariate analysis. ii. Normality testing via the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is correctly applied, and the subsequent choice of Spearman’s rank correlation for non-normal, ordinal data is methodologically sound. iii. The two-tier correlation analysis (all data points vs. church-level means) is a strength, as it helps reduce individual-level noise and confirms stability of relationships. That said, the manuscript occasionally uses strong structural or causal language (“structural relationship,” “decision-making logic”) while relying solely on bivariate correlations. Correlation analysis alone cannot fully support structural claims. This does not invalidate the analysis but suggests the need for either: more cautious interpretation, or complementary analyses (e.g., factor analysis or clustering), if such claims are to be retained. The manuscript provides: Summary statistics, Reliability and validity outputs, Correlation matrices, Graphical representations of distributions. But it is not fully clear whether the raw SD scores (i.e., individual participant ratings for each church and each adjective pair) are provided in a reusable format (e.g., spreadsheet or table in Supporting Information). While not strictly required, best practice under PLOS policy encourages availability of data points underlying means and correlations. The authors should explicitly confirm that raw or semi-raw scoring matrices are included as Supporting Information, or provide them in a tabular format to enhance transparency, replicability, and secondary analysis. Reviewer #2: The study addresses a topic that has historical, architectural, and religious significance. It is also relevant to the construction industry, particularly architecture, and has practical implications for cultural management departments and architectural heritage preservation. Additionally, the utilization of the semantic difference method to carry out the feature evaluation of the facades of the churches under study brings a novel dimension. The manuscript exhibits several promising features, including its focus on the subject being investigated. The study contributes meaningfully to knowledge by addressing a methodological gap in earlier studies on comprehensive evaluations of facades of Catholic churches in the study area. Overall, the literature review presented in the literature review section is relevant and current to some extent. However, the following areas of the manuscript require attention to enhance its robustness. 1. The introduction section of the study, though concise, presents an adequate background to the study. It could have benefited from more recent citations. Also, there is no reference to literature between lines 70 and 75. Kindly rephrase the sentence between lines 83 and 85: "Furthermore, the relationship between facade structural characteristics is revealed from both the overall evaluation score of the church and the evaluation score of each individual church." The use of "the church" and "individual church" might not be clear to some audiences. 2. The sub-section, 3.1 (Research area) under the Research methodology section, provides the requisite information situate the study. However, the source of the literature and supporting Figure have not been provided. Also, the limitations regarding the study participants are clearly stated in the discussion section, but the sampling/selection method has not been described in the methodology. 3. The study employs the semantic difference method to evaluate the main facade characteristics of these churches across five dimensions, namely: relationship with the environment, facade contour, facade style, facade decoration, and religious expression. It has six evaluation criteria, subdivided into facade style 1 and façade style 2. This should be explicitly stated for clarity. 4. Under subsection 4.4. (Correlation analysis of evaluation factors for façade) in the analysis section, kindly rephrase the sentence between lines 550 and 553 “Subsequently, correlation analysis will be performed on the calculated means of each church factor……” The portion “will be performed” should be “was performed”. Also, could lines 558 and 597-598, which present the data’s “violation and significant departure from normalcy be explained further for clarity? 5. Please, rectify the following references: 786 Coomans, T., & Luo, W. (2015); 789 Coomans, T. (2025) and 832 Ocker, C., & Elm, S. (2020). Overall, the manuscript has many strengths, and the above suggestions, if considered/addressed, will further strengthen the paper. ****** 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: Henry Kofi Dansu 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.] 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.0348806.r001
Revision 1
2 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewers, We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript titled "Comprehensive feature evaluation of the main facades of Catholic churches in Sichuan-Chongqing region based on semantic difference method, 1840-1949" and are grateful for the insightful comments provided by the reviewers.The comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have carefully addressed all the points raised by the reviewers. In the following section, we provide a point-by-point response to the comments. For clarity, the reviewers' comments are presented in italics, and our corresponding responses and revisions are highlighted in blue text. Additionally, all major changes in the revised manuscript are marked in red. We have conducted a comprehensive revision of the entire manuscript and hope that this version now meets the requirements for publication. Response to Reviewer 1: The manuscript is partially sound; conclusions are generally supported but occasionally over-extended. It presents a technically coherent study that applies the semantic difference (SD) method in a systematic and replicable manner. The research design is clearly described, the evaluation dimensions are grounded in prior literature, and the sample size of 62 churches × 50 evaluators (3,100 data points) is adequate for perceptual analysis of this type. Reliability and validity checks (Cronbach’s Alpha, KMO, Bartlett’s test) indicate acceptable to strong internal consistency. The descriptive results and correlation analyses broadly support the authors’ main conclusions regarding: i. The predominance of Western-oriented facade characteristics. ii. The existence of localized Sino–Western hybridization. iii. Positive associations between facade style, decoration, and religious expression. (1)However, some interpretive conclusions particularly those linking facade characteristics to missionary intent, social resistance, or cultural strategy go beyond what the perceptual data alone can substantiate. These claims would require stronger historical or archival triangulation. With more cautious phrasing, the conclusions would be fully aligned with the presented data. Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive suggestions. We agree that our perceptual data, derived from the SD method, primarily reflects the visual and formal characteristics of the facades rather than the historical motivations or strategies behind them. Following your suggestion, we have refined the Conclusion and Discussion sections using more cautious and descriptive phrasing. Specifically:We have shifted the interpretative focus from "missionary intent" and "cultural strategies" to "stylistic manifestations" and "architectural integration tendencies." We have removed/toned down claims regarding the socio-political motivations of the builders that were not directly supported by historical archives within this specific study. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 681-682, 745-747, and 765-768. The statistical analysis is appropriate for the nature of the data and is generally rigorous: i. The use of Cronbach’s Alpha, KMO, and Bartlett’s test appropriately establishes scale reliability and suitability for multivariate analysis. ii. Normality testing via the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is correctly applied, and the subsequent choice of Spearman’s rank correlation for non-normal, ordinal data is methodologically sound. iii. The two-tier correlation analysis (all data points vs. church-level means) is a strength, as it helps reduce individual-level noise and confirms stability of relationships. (2)That said, the manuscript occasionally uses strong structural or causal language (“structural relationship,” “decision-making logic”) while relying solely on bivariate correlations. Correlation analysis alone cannot fully support structural claims. This does not invalidate the analysis but suggests the need for either: more cautious interpretation, or complementary analyses (e.g., factor analysis or clustering), if such claims are to be retained. Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive suggestions. We agree that bivariate correlation analysis identifies associations rather than establishing definitive causal or structural relationships. In response to your suggestion, we have opted for a more cautious interpretation of our findings throughout the manuscript. Specifically: We have replaced strong terms such as "structural relationship" and "decision-making logic" with more appropriate academic terms like "interrelationships," "associations," and "compositional patterns." We have clarified that the findings reveal co-occurrence patterns rather than establishing a hierarchical or causal structure. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 91-93, 101, 229-230, 624-644, 646-648, 651-652, and 748-750. (3) The manuscript provides: Summary statistics, Reliability and validity outputs, Correlation matrices, Graphical representations of distributions. But it is not fully clear whether the raw SD scores (i.e., individual participant ratings for each church and each adjective pair) are provided in a reusable format (e.g., spreadsheet or table in Supporting Information). While not strictly required, best practice under PLOS policy encourages availability of data points underlying means and correlations. The authors should explicitly confirm that raw or semi-raw scoring matrices are included as Supporting Information, or provide them in a tabular format to enhance transparency, replicability, and secondary analysis. Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive suggestions. In strict accordance with PLOS data policy and the reviewer's suggestion, we have provided the complete raw scoring matrix and the aggregated mean scores as Supporting Information： S1 Table： Aggregated mean scores of the six evaluation criteria for 62 churches. This table provides the summary metrics used for regional comparative analysis. S2 Table： Raw individual scoring matrix for 62 churches. This dataset contains 3,100 individual data points (50 participants × 62 churches) used to calculate the reliability, validity, and mean values presented in the study. Response to Reviewer 2: The study addresses a topic that has historical, architectural, and religious significance. It is also relevant to the construction industry, particularly architecture, and has practical implications for cultural management departments and architectural heritage preservation. Additionally, the utilization of the semantic difference method to carry out the feature evaluation of the facades of the churches under study brings a novel dimension. The manuscript exhibits several promising features, including its focus on the subject being investigated. The study contributes meaningfully to knowledge by addressing a methodological gap in earlier studies on comprehensive evaluations of facades of Catholic churches in the study area. Overall, the literature review presented in the literature review section is relevant and current to some extent. However, the following areas of the manuscript require attention to enhance its robustness. (1)The introduction section of the study, though concise, presents an adequate background to the study. It could have benefited from more recent citations. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the background provided in the introduction. Following your suggestion, we have updated the references to reflect the most recent developments in this field. Specifically, we have incorporated six new citations from the last five years (e.g., Liao, 2021; Pynkyawati, 2022; Coomans, 2023; Yin et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025) to provide a more contemporary context for our study. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 43, 46-48,49,50-51,57-66, and 72. (2)Also, there is no reference to literature between lines 70 and 75. Response: We sincerely apologize for this oversight and thank the reviewer for pointing it out. In accordance with your suggestion, we have now included the necessary citations between lines 70 and 75 (in the revised manuscript). The added references (Coomans, 2023; Cody,1996; Arno, 2026), provide the required theoretical basis for this section. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 80, 82, and 84. (3)Kindly rephrase the sentence between lines 83 and 85: "Furthermore, the relationship between facade structural characteristics is revealed from both the overall evaluation score of the church and the evaluation score of each individual church." The use of "the church" and "individual church" might not be clear to some audiences. Response: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree that the previous phrasing was somewhat ambiguous regarding the scale of the analysis. We have revised the sentence to distinguish more clearly between the entire sample set and the specific case studies. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 91-93. (4)The sub-section, 3.1 (Research area) under the Research methodology section, provides the requisite information situate the study. However, the source of the literature and supporting Figure have not been provided. Response: Thank you for your careful review and constructive feedback. We agree that the sources for the statistical data and Figure 1 should be more explicitly documented to ensure academic rigor. We have addressed these concerns in the revised Section 3.1 as follows: Clarification of Data Sources: We have explicitly stated that the statistical data regarding the 62 Catholic churches were synthesized from the Digital Local Chronicles of Sichuan and Chongqing and historical records in Sichuan Catholicism (Liu, 2009). Additionally, we have incorporated more recent and relevant literature (e.g., Wang, 2020; Gao et al., 2025; Zhang, 2025) to provide a more robust theoretical and empirical background. Documentation of Figure 1: We have updated the caption of Figure 1 to clarify its source. This figure was generated by the authors by integrating data from official local chronicles with our extensive field investigation findings. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 199, 201, 202-204, and 212-213. (5)Also, the limitations regarding the study participants are clearly stated in the discussion section, but the sampling/selection method has not been described in the methodology. Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive suggestions. We fully agree that a detailed description of the sampling and selection process is essential for ensuring methodological transparency. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the description of the purposive sampling method and the specific inclusion criteria for participants. Specifically, we have clarified that the 50 participants were selected from senior undergraduate and graduate architecture programs. This criterion ensures that they possess the necessary professional background to provide reliable and informed ratings for the study. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 267-271. (6)The study employs the semantic difference method to evaluate the main facade characteristics of these churches across five dimensions, namely: relationship with the environment, facade contour, facade style, facade decoration, and religious expression. It has six evaluation criteria, subdivided into facade style 1 and façade style 2. This should be explicitly stated for clarity. Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive suggestions. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding the clarity of our evaluation criteria. Accordingly, we have updated the Abstract, Methodology, and Conclusion to specify the five dimensions and six criteria. To clarify the distinction between the two style-related sub-criteria, we have now included their respective adjective pairs: "Chinese vs. Western" (Facade Style 1) for cultural origin, and "Folk vs. Official" (Facade Style 2) for architectural formality and social stratum. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 25-27, 242-243, and 724-727. (7)Under subsection 4.4. (Correlation analysis of evaluation factors for façade) in the analysis section, kindly rephrase the sentence between lines 550 and 553 “Subsequently, correlation analysis will be performed on the calculated means of each church factor……” The portion “will be performed” should be “was performed”. Response: Thank you for your meticulous review. We apologize for the inconsistent use of tenses in this section. Following your suggestion, we have changed "will be performed" to "was performed" to correctly reflect the completed nature of the data analysis. Furthermore, we have reviewed the entire subsection 4.4 and updated other future-tense expressions to the past tense for consistency. Please refer to the revised text in Lines 560 and 562. (8) Also, could lines 558 and 597-598, which present the data’s “violation and significant departure from normalcy be explained further for clarity? Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have expanded the explanation regarding the "departure from normalcy" in lines 558 and 597-598 to improve clarity. Specifically, we have clarified that the normality test (K-S test) was a necessary step to justify our choice of statistical methods. Since the p-values were all below 0.05, the data exhibited a non-normal distribution, which statistically precluded the use of Pearson’s correlation. Therefore, we opted for Spearman’s rank correlation, a non-parametric approach that provides more reliable and accurate measures for data that do not follow a normal distribution. We have also refined the language, replacing "violated" with "exhibited a significant departure from" to align with standard academic reporting.Please refer to the revised text in Lines 567-569, 571-575, and 612-616. (9)Please, rectify the following references: 786 Coomans, T., & Luo, W. (2015); 789 Coomans, T. (2025) and 832 Ocker, C., & Elm, S. (2020). Response: Thank you for your careful check. In accordance with your suggestion, we have rectified the citations for 786 (Coomans & Luo, 2015), 789 (Coomans, 2025). Specifically, we have added missing information such as the names of the editors, publication locations, and full book titles to ensure they strictly follow the journal's formatting guidelines. Please refer to the updated References section (Lines 909-912, 913-914). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348806.r002
21 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Kofi Agyekum, Editor Comprehensive feature evaluation of the main facades of Catholic churches in Sichuan-Chongqing region based on semantic difference method, 1840-1949 PONE-D-25-67492R1 Dear Dr. Li, 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, Kofi Agyekum, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Author, Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS One. The reviewers have recommended it for publication. Congratulations! We hope you will consider PLOS One again for your future manuscripts. 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Henry Kofi Dansu Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348806.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kofi Agyekum, Editor PONE-D-25-67492R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Li, 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 Prof. Kofi Agyekum Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348806.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 .