Comparison of the effects of exergaming and balance training on dynamic postural stability during jump-landing in recreational athletes with chronic ankle instability

Sadaf Sepasgozar Sarkhosh; Roya Khanmohammadi; Zeinab Shiravi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314686

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 1, 2024
1 Aug 2024 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to the original reviewers comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r001
8 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Žiga Kozinc, Editor PONE-D-24-32029Comparison of the effects of exergaming and balance training on dynamic postural stability during jump-landing in recreational athletes with chronic ankle instabilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khanmohammadi, 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 Nov 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Žiga Kozinc Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This project was funded by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 1401-2-103-66959).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. 4. 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. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: A two-arm randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted which aimed to determine if exergaming is more effective than balance training in improving dynamic postural control during jump-landing movements among athletes with chronic ankle instability. Secondary aims included comparing the effectiveness of intervention on clinical and psychological outcomes. The results are unclear due to the lack of details about how the interaction and main effects were tested. Minor revisions: 1- Line 192: State the statistical testing method which achieves 80% power. 2- Line 322: For improved clarity, replace frequency with proportions. 3- Table 1: In addition to the frequencies, state the corresponding percentages of female, left affected side, and left dominant side. 4- Clarify if interaction effects were tested according to standard practice. If the interaction effect is significant, provide an interpretation of the results, but do not test main effects because the tests for main effects are uninteresting in light of significant interactions. If interaction effects are non-significant, drop the interaction effects from the model and test the main effects. Determining which results to present when testing interactions is often a multi-step process. 5- Cite the statistical software used for the analysis. Reviewer #2: The authors responded to questions accurately. The results of manuscript are helpful in the designing the therapeutic exercises for improving balance control in recreational athletes with CAI. The manuscript is appropriate for publication in this journal. Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, Kindly address the following: 1. Participants inclusion and exclusion criteria should be more clear. 2. Primary outcomes measures and Secondary outcome measures, kindly provide more reason in detail about their selection in this study. 3. A force plate device (Bertec Corporation, Columbus, OH, USA)- Reliability and validity of this device is needed. 4. The description of games- Can you able to provide the reasons foe selecting these specific games. 5. Discussion was well written and covered all the aspects. 6. English language correction is needed in some parts of this study. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes: KAKARAPARTHI V NAGARAJ ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r002
Revision 1
11 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer 1 We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of the manuscript and the valuable comments and suggestions provided. We believe that the manuscript has significantly improved as a result of incorporating your feedback, which has been highlighted in red throughout the text. Question 1: A two-arm randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted which aimed to determine if exergaming is more effective than balance training in improving dynamic postural control during jump-landing movements among athletes with chronic ankle instability. Secondary aims included comparing the effectiveness of intervention on clinical and psychological outcomes. The results are unclear due to the lack of details about how the interaction and main effects were tested. Clarify if interaction effects were tested according to standard practice. If the interaction effect is significant, provide an interpretation of the results, but do not test main effects because the tests for main effects are uninteresting in light of significant interactions. If interaction effects are non-significant, drop the interaction effects from the model and test the main effects. Determining which results to present when testing interactions is often a multi-step process. Answer 1: We value your feedback; however, it’s important to highlight that this aspect was also addressed in our statistical analysis. To provide further clarity on this matter, additional explanations have been included in the statistical analysis section. “If a significant interaction effect was found, separate one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted for each group to further investigate these interactions and assess the effect of time within each group, individually. When the main effects were significant but the interaction was not, the main effects could be interpreted directly”. Furthermore, as shown in the results, the interaction effect is not significant for any of the variables, allowing for a straightforward interpretation of the main effects. Question 2: Line 192: State the statistical testing method which achieves 80% power. Answer 2: In response to your feedback, we have revised the "Sample Size" section as follows. “The sample size was estimated from a pilot study, focusing on SI and TTS in the ML direction. An a priori power analysis was conducted using GPower 3.1.9.2 software to achieve 80% power. The statistical testing method chosen was a repeated measures ANOVA with a within-between interaction design. The calculation used a effect size of 0.054 and 0.061, a power of 0.8, α = 0.05, non-sphericity correction (ε) = 1, and a correlation among repeated measures of 0.5. The analysis indicated that at least 30 participants were needed to detect a within-between interaction effect in a test design of 2 groups and 3 measurements with the specified parameters. Consequently, 34 participants were recruited to account for a potential 10% dropout rate.” Question 3: Line 322: For improved clarity, replace frequency with proportions. Answer 3: We replaced frequency with proportions. Question 4: Table 1: In addition to the frequencies, state the corresponding percentages of female, left affected side, and left dominant side. Answer 4: We included the percentages in the Table 1. Question 5: Cite the statistical software used for the analysis. Answer 5: We added the following sentence to the text. “For statistical analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.0 was utilized.” Dear Reviewer 3 We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of the manuscript and the valuable comments and suggestions provided. We believe that the manuscript has significantly improved as a result of incorporating your feedback, which has been highlighted in blue throughout the text. Question 1: Participants inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearer. Answer 1: We have revised this section as follows. “Inclusion Criteria: 1. Age between 18 and 40 years. 2. A self-reported history of at least one significant acute ankle sprain that: o Occurred more than 12 months prior to study enrollment. o Was associated with inflammatory symptoms, such as pain and swelling. o Resulted in at least one day of interrupted physical activity [2]. 3. The most recent ankle sprain occurred more than 3 months before study enrollment [2]. 4. A history of at least two episodes of "giving way," recurrent ankle sprains, or "feelings of ankle joint instability" within the last 6 months: o "Giving way" refers to uncontrolled and unpredictable episodes of excessive inversion of the rear foot during activities, which do not result in an acute sprain. o "Recurrent sprains" are defined as two or more sprains to the same ankle. o "Feelings of instability" refer to the perception of instability during daily activities or sports, often associated with the fear of a new ankle sprain [2]. 5. A Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) score of ≤ 24 (the CAIT is scored from 0–30, with lower scores indicating more instability) [2]. 6. Participants must be recreationally active, engaging in sports that involve jumping (such as volleyball, basketball, soccer, or handball) at least three times a week, for a minimum of 30 minutes per session [27]. 7. No self-reported history of fractures or surgery in the lower extremity. 8. No known psychological or neurological disorders. 9. No prior experience with video game-based training. Exclusion Criteria: 1. If participants missed three or more non-consecutive training sessions, or two consecutive sessions. 2. They unable to perform the required maneuvers. » Question 2: Primary outcomes measures and Secondary outcome measures, kindly provide more reason in detail about their selection in this study. Answer 2: We revised this section to “The primary outcome measures included the SI and the TTS in the anteroposterior (AP), mediolateral (ML), and vertical (V) directions, along with the dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) and the resultant vector time to stabilization (RVTTS) during jump landing. The SI and TTS were selected for their strong reliability as established metrics for evaluating dynamic balance during jump landings. These parameters can distinguish individuals with CAI from those who are healthy, as research show that individuals with CAI typically achieve higher scores on the SI and TTS than their healthy counterparts [25]. Furthermore, these parameters are associated with an increased risk of recurrent injuries [26]. These measures enable the evaluation of neuromuscular control, which is crucial in minimizing the risk of re-injury and improving functional outcomes in sports. Thus, improving these parameters and ensuring sufficient stability during jump landings is a vital aspect of the rehabilitation program. Secondary outcomes included performance metrics, fear of movement, and the severity of perceived ankle instability, assessed using the side-hop test, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT), respectively. These secondary outcomes were selected to provide a more holistic evaluation of the participants' functional and psychological well-being. The side-hop test measures agility and functional performance of the ankle during dynamic activities, while the TSK evaluates fear of movement or re-injury—an important factor that can significantly impact rehabilitation and athletic performance. The CAIT assesses participants' subjective perceptions of ankle instability, which is essential for understanding their overall ankle function. Incorporating these secondary measures enhances the primary dynamic postural stability outcomes by considering both functional performance and psychological factors that play a crucial role in the rehabilitation process and long-term recovery for athletes with CAI.” Question 3: A force plate device (Bertec Corporation, Columbus, OH, USA)- Reliability and validity of this device is needed. Answer 3: We have incorporated the following sentences to address your comment. “The Bertec force plate is well-known for its exceptional reliability and validity in assessing ground reaction forces (GRF). Numerous studies have shown that it provides accurate and consistent data across different movement patterns, establishing it as a "gold standard" for evaluating balance and center of pressure (COP) measurements [28-30].” Question 4: The description of games- Can you able to provide the reasons for selecting these specific games. Answer 4: We added the following paragraph to the text “These games, categorized as balance games in Wii Fit, are primarily intended to improve postural stability. Selected games, including the Single Leg Extension, Torso Twist, Single Leg Twist, Sideways Leg Lift, and Rowing Squat, require participants to maintain balance while executing various movements. This focus on dynamic balance is essential for athletes and individuals recovering from ankle injuries. The games simulate movements and challenges commonly faced in both sports and daily life. Additionally, weight-shifting activities in Snowboard Slalom, Table Tilt, Penguin Fishing, Soccer Heading, and Tightrope Walk closely reflect real-world scenarios, making them particularly relevant for athletes striving to regain dynamic stability and confidence in their performance. Furthermore, many of these games, like Rowing Squat, engage multiple muscle groups, enhancing overall strength, coordination, and endurance. This comprehensive approach is crucial for rehabilitation, effectively preparing participants for the physical demands of their sports and daily activities.” Question 5: English language correction is needed in some parts of this study. Answer 5: The manuscript was reviewed by a native English speaker. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Dear Reviewer 3.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r003
5 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Žiga Kozinc, Editor PONE-D-24-32029R1Comparison of the effects of exergaming and balance training on dynamic postural stability during jump-landing in recreational athletes with chronic ankle instabilityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khanmohammadi, 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 Dec 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Žiga Kozinc 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: (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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Minor revisions: 1- Table 1: Check the data for normal distributions. If variables do not follow normal distributions, summarize using median, first and third quartiles and compare using Wilcoxon rank sum test. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r004
Revision 2
6 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer 1 We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of the manuscript and the valuable comments and suggestions provided. We believe that the manuscript has significantly improved as a result of incorporating your feedback, which has been highlighted in red throughout the text. Question 1: 1- Table 1: Check the data for normal distributions. If variables do not follow normal distributions, summarize using median, first and third quartiles and compare using Wilcoxon rank sum test Answer 1: Thank you for your attention to this detail. As previously noted, all variables except for age and time since the last ankle sprain followed a normal distribution. Consequently, we revised Table 1 to present the median and interquartile range (Q1 and Q3) for these two variables in place of the mean and standard deviation. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Dear Reviewer 1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r005
15 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Žiga Kozinc, Editor Comparison of the effects of exergaming and balance training on dynamic postural stability during jump-landing in recreational athletes with chronic ankle instability PONE-D-24-32029R2 Dear Dr. Khanmohammadi, 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Žiga Kozinc Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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) ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r006
Formally Accepted
4 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Žiga Kozinc, Editor PONE-D-24-32029R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khanmohammadi, 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 If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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. 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 Dr. Žiga Kozinc Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314686.r007

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 .