Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 23, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-30060 Church population dynamics with sustainability PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee, 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. Both reviewers liked the use of mathematical modeling to address a social issue like church membership, but they also feel that the manuscript in its present form suffers from many flaws. In preparing your revision to address all comments by the two reviewers, I hope you would give special attention to: (1) your choice of title for the manuscript, since its scope is significantly narrower than the question on sustainability of churches; (2) the framing of your study, as both reviewers feel that the present perspective is rather negative, but at the same time, there is tremendous potential to use the mathematical modeling more positively. I understand that this rethinking about the manuscript would take time. Please do not hesitate to ask for more time if you feel you need it. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 15 2021 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:
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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Siew Ann Cheong, 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 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [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: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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: No 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: Overall comment We are very sorry to have to reject it this time, but we think it would be a tremendous improvement if you could make better use of the Korean original data set and present a data set that can be used for empirical experiments. We also agree with the theme of the paper and the ideology of the abstract. However, in agreeing with you, we find the structure of the text and the extreme and erroneous interpretation of topics such as HIV and mortality rates, and conversely, the content of the article to be risky as it promotes fear rather than understanding of Christian sustainability. Also, please understand that there is a lot of room for revision, given the fact that there is a lot of data and advanced research cases unique to Korea, and we are rejecting this article in a very positive light. Q0. The question on arguing One of the major challenges in this paper is that in discussing the significance of using the SIR model and the sustainability of Christianity, we believe that an in-depth discussion about why we should talk about it in the context of HIV and mortality is necessary. We believe that they can create a false understanding, a simplistic interpretation. We also think that consideration should be given to the readers who search for and read this paper. What is important in continuing to be a believer is the rhythm of one's life, external factors, social and economic factors, etc., and even when discussing the transmission model, it is not possible to speak only of opportunities for contact with people. In addition, we cannot discuss the propagation model only from the perspective of opportunities for contact with people, because it depends on a variety of factors such as beliefs and communication with people we come into contact with on a daily basis, as well as external social factors (this paper uses newspapers as a case study, but I believe that personal media such as SNS may also have an influence on the model.) In particular, the Republic of Korea should be an information-oriented country, since education and development in web media have advanced at a rapid pace since around 2000. For this reason, the influence of information via web media cannot be ignored. Overall comment from section Also, in discussing the sustainability of communication and religious communication in this paper, I think it is better to discuss the model case of COVID-19, where many risks in the church occurred. Various case studies and datasets have already been collected, and I suggest that the argument in this study may be more plausible in discussing the calculations of the SIR model used in this study and sustainability in religious beliefs if we use this logic again. [1]Kim, B. N., Kim, E., Lee, S., & Oh, C. (2020). Mathematical Model of COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics in South Korea: The Impacts of Travel Restrictions, Social Distancing, and Early Detection. Processes, 8(10), 1304. [2]Kim, Sungchan, et al. "Evaluation of COVID-19 epidemic outbreak caused by temporal contact-increase in South Korea. Infectious Diseases (2020). [3]Feng, X., Chen, J., Wang, K., Wang, L., Zhang, F., Jin, Z., ... & Wang, X. (2020). Phase-adjusted estimation of the COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea under multi-source data and adjustment measures: a modelling study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 17(4), 3637. In the above, a case study in a church is mentioned. Other cases, such as a case study in COVID-19 with machine learning are discussed. [4]Hong, H. G., & Li, Y. (2020). Estimation of time-varying reproduction numbers underlying epidemiological processes: A new statistical tool for the COVID-19 pandemic. PloS one, 15 (7), e0236464. [5]Suzuki, Y., & Suzuki, A. (2020). Machine learning model estimating the number of COVID-19 infection cases over coming 24 days in every province of South Korea (XGBoost and MultiOutputRegressor). medRxiv. medRxiv. [6]Althouse, B. M., Wallace, B., Case, B., Scarpino, S. V., Berdahl, A. M., White, E. R., & Hebert-Dufresne, L. (2020). The unintended consequences of inconsistent pandemic control policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.09629. In the above, the case of COVID-19 is used as a case study regarding the risk of infection in a densely populated zone, such as inside a church, where it was not expected. Also, in arguing for the SIR model with COVID-19 as its axis, we think it is necessary to discuss the security of spatial distance in the current environment, such as Social Distanse, in order to make a final argument for the SIR model. [7]Ho, Y. C., Chen, Y. H., Hung, S. H., Huang, C. H., Po, P., Chan, C. H., ... & Fang, C. T. (2020). Social Distancing 2.0 with Privacy-Preserving Contact Tracing to Avoid a Second Wave of COVID-19. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16611. The above also raises issues regarding zoning in churches and other faiths. [8]Bae, T. W., Kwon, K. K., & Kim, K. H. (2020). Mass Infection Analysis of COVID-19 Using the SEIRD Model in Daegu-Gyeongbuk of Korea from April to May, 2020. Journal of Korean medical science, 35(34). In the above, a case study is described in which a model calculation was performed on practical responses to infection cases in hospitals and via churches. In addition, previous studies on the risk of infection in Christian churches in SARS and MARS, etc., provide insufficient explanation to arrive at a logic from HIV and mortality, or a logic from evidence to sustainability in the faith, and yet, the explanatory variables used in the model calculations are Insufficient disclosure of the original data of text mining results. The current research paper discusses the results of model calculations related to the risk of infection and mortality related to HIV infection and mortality as a case study using the SIR model with respect to sustainability in long-term Christian beliefs, but in discussing medium- and long-term sustainability, it is of course important to note that there is a lack of disclosure of the original data related to the risk of infection to wounds and diseases. Although there is a great need to be aware of the issues, there is no concrete explanation of the reasons for focusing only on HIV and mortality. In addition, it would be possible to discuss the issue from the perspectives of medical statistics and actuarial science and welfare. In terms of consideration for the reader, I believe that the readers are pastors and others who work in the field of sustainability in the Christian faith. We believe that considerations related to HIV management and pathology are more practical and easier to understand if you raise issues related to the risk of viral infection, such as the response to COVID-19, or if you take a case study approach to fitting a model. However, although the above is understandable when considered in the context of Christian hospital management, it is still a limited story, and as a case study in discussing the sustainability of faith in model calculations using the SIR model, it is a bit extreme and should be considered from the reader's perspective. We think. In particular, we assume that the reader is a practicing pastor, nun, or religious person. With that in mind, we think it would be a negative campaign to discuss the sustainability of faith in the context of HIV, mortality, etc. in this paper. If we are going to discuss sustainability, we need a logic about comprehensive care in the context of the current crisis situation, such as COVID-19. Q1.FIG: Regarding the diagram Table 2 and figures should be converted to graphs and pivot tables. Table 2, in particular, is very difficult to read with only numbers. We would like to see the contents of the data set graphed with consideration for the reader. Q2. Data sets There is no way to validate the model calculations as there is no description of how the dataset was obtained, the duration of the data, or what percentage of newspaper articles in Korea are influence factors by coverage. When incorporating text mining results as an external factor into the model of the analysis, an exact description of the dataset is required since the results are estimates, taking into account only the influence on limited textual information. In addition, explicitly stated text mining rules, such as morphological analysis of parameters in model calculations, methods in text mining, program languages (or toolkits), and criteria for decision making when segmentation is used, will further enhance understanding of the explanatory factors and the SIR model , the significance of using the SD method, and understanding of the results will be promoted. Q3. Regarding the text Line; 110-112 Lines; 360-366 The decline of faith in scandals has occurred in many Christian denominations, especially in cases where the separation of church and state is not possible and the issue is obscured and not faced up to. In recent years, the denunciation of Christianity has been questioned by social networking sites, dramas, music, movies, and other media that contain a vast amount of information about Christianity. In recent years, external accusations have been made on public message boards, which sometimes undermine the credibility of Christianity. Especially in Korea, an information-oriented country, there are already many strategies in place. There are risks lurking there as well, and I think there are cases where they may be deliberately destroyed over the medium to long term by the medium of content and other large scale information resources. Although people have freedom of religion, it is possible that such large-scale information dissemination could lead to historical and cultural destruction (such as stigma and other destructive factors) in areas where the separation of church and state is difficult to achieve due to regional attributes and class balance. We would have liked to see some reference in this paper to positive and negative effects on different axes than population trends. As a factor, depending on the directionality of the information and contents of the mass and personal media that we see in our daily lives, they may function to maintain the cultural image and image recognition of the region over the medium to long term. We propose that the impact of external factors on large scale digital data, such as social networking sites and other uniquely advanced Korean digital data as external factors: the text of elements such as WOM (word-of-mouth information) and their analysis and scoring using topical models such as LDA can be further interpreted by utilizing the results of the analysis and scoring of these elements. We believe that a guided and correct contextual discourse that leads to a faith that is understandable to the reader will build a sustainable society. Reviewer #2: This paper has a lot of potential in contributing to the burgeoning literature on church growth/decline using SD and ABM approaches. However, there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out first. A major problem is that the manuscript is difficult to follow, and this is primarily because the framing is not focused on the actual topic at hand. The authors tend to conflate the broad concept of sustainability, “environment”, and the topic of church membership growth, decline, and equilibrium. It took me about five pages to confirm that the paper would primarily focus on church membership, and not be tackling the many ways that religion is associated with social issues like environmental sustainability, or business concerns like financial sustainability. While there is an argument to be made that these are all linked to church membership, to an extent, it is distracting to the purpose of the paper. Therefore, I strongly recommend re-framing the article to focus on church membership growth. Sentences such as “the extent to which churches contribute to sustainability in a society may drive the growth of the church population” Pg 27, lines 569-570, should instead read something closer to: Church contributions and involvement in bettering society help improve the church’s image, making people more open to receiving their evangelism efforts. “Environmental issues” also don’t rank highly in the reasons for declining church membership (claimed by the authors on lines 112/113). Reasons for decline are more varied than just ethical leadership and concern with social/environment issues. Much of it is demographic (births), which Hayward (2005, 2018) notes. The authors could spend more time discussing how births are handled in the model. It appears that new births are considered unbelievers, although it seems more likely that children will be similar to their parents in terms of religious belief; it would be nice if the authors could confirm they are following previous models’ standards in regards to births. It is also unclear whether the main contribution is methodological, substantive, or comparative. Is it using an agent-based framework instead of just the system dynamics? The substantive results? Applying previously-designed models of church growth to the South Korean context? From my reading, the unique contribution seems to be using a time-dependent sustainable potential, which is informed by an analysis of newspapers. If this is true, then attention should be shifted to that in particular. Much more detail needs to be provided to defend the selection of sustainability indicators on page 24, which cites 7 articles, but does not elaborate on how they informed the decision-making: “the sustainability indicators of a church were selected from scholarly works related to practices for 508 sustainability [5,9,18,25,62-64].” For reasons discussed earlier, it isn’t clear to me why “environmental” would be its own category. A Church’s engagement in environmental issues seems similar to their engagement in other issues that are important to the broader public. More detailed suggestions are as follows: 1. The paper would benefit from more background information specific to church growth/decline and about the Presbyterian Church in Korea. How relevant is discussion of revival, like the Great Revival in South Korea, to modeling decisions with SD and ABM approaches? How does it inform the selection of indicators in the sustainability function? 2. The line charts (Figure 4) are difficult to read 3. Be careful with generalizations to “religion” when aspects of Christianity or Presbyterianism are the focus. The term “biblical worldview” for instance (line 33). Some of the statements about religion are also unnecessarily broad (e.g. sentence starting at line 44); keep it focused on church membership changes. 4. “Pippa” should be “Norris” (line 51). Unclear that this citation supports the argument anyways, since they assert that religiosity tends to decrease with increased socioeconomic well-being. 5. “In the discipleship process, passive believers can mature into active believers, where the process usually lasts four years in church situations in South Korea” pg 12 lines 252-253 – are there any sources to support this claim? 6. “Initial parameters of flows and other auxiliary variables were optimized to reproduce the trend of the PCK population from 1995 to 2018” pg 20 lines 422-423 -- How is this optimization completed? Overall, I view re-framing of the paper to focus on church growth/decline, instead of “sustainability” to be of the utmost importance. Besides that, however, there needs to be more work done to make the paper a clearer contribution, with more detailed explanation of the sustainability function in particular. This may be a challenge since religion does not appear to be the authors’ usual field of study. I would advise them to review the citations in Hayward’s 2018 paper to become more acquainted with the study of church growth/decline, which has primarily focused on the United States setting. If the authors are successful, I would certainly look forward to reading the paper again. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-20-30060R1 Sustainability of Riligious Population PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee, 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 address the remaining concerns of Reviewer 2. Also, 'Riligious Population' sounds awkward in the title, and 'Religious' is misspelled. Will the authors consider 'Religious Communities' instead? Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2021 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:
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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Siew Ann Cheong, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ********** 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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: No ********** 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: Most of the points I commented on before have been improved and the paper is now very easy to read and understand. In particular, it is easier to understand the allocation of topics, the position of the research in the timeline, and the correspondence and relationship with previous research in Korea. Reviewer #2: I appreciate the efforts the authors put into responding to my earlier comments. The removal of text in the first few pages and addition of other text throughout does improve the framing. The focus now seems more about the public image and functional purpose of the church in Korean society, and how improving these assists with membership sustainability by making the un-churched more open to joining the church. A key phrase in helping me understand this was on page 12: “Sustainable potential s reflects how amicable unbelievers are to the Christian faith, and integrates social factors in a society.” This contrasts to previous approaches, which were focused on conversion potential via the level of enthusiasm for evangelism among current members. Unfortunately, the contribution of the sustainability potential still doesn’t become clear until nearly half-way through the paper. There is still a problem that sustainability is introduced in a way that many readers may find confusing. The introduction should be about the sustainability of church membership through many avenues including conversion efforts, not how religious values or beliefs are related to the field of sustainability. The first two paragraphs should be written to highlight the way that past literature tends to emphasize the enthusiasm for evangelism as a key factor in church growth, and why church image and improving it through positive social engagement and activism is also important. I recommend the work of Mara Einstein on the religious branding of the United Methodist Church (start with article titled: “The Evolution of Religious Branding”) to assist in this framing. I disagree with the other reviewer regarding who the likely audience for the paper is. Given the complexity and novelty of SD/ABM methods, it seems unlikely to me that the audience will be church leaders and pastors. For that reason, I am not concerned with how the audience may perceive epidemiological and HIV model. I also do not see the usefulness of figure 7, it is nearly impossible to read. Among my lesser concerns is that the new sections of the manuscript need a copy edit, including the typo to the submitted title. If the authors are successful in framing the article, it may be a very well-rounded contribution. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
Sustainability of Religious Communities PONE-D-20-30060R2 Dear Dr. Lee, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Siew Ann Cheong, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-30060R2 Sustainability of Religious Communities Dear Dr. Lee: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Siew Ann Cheong Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .