Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 13;18(2):e0281749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281749

The role of the arts in enhancing data literacy: A scoping review protocol

Ailish Hannigan 1,2,*, Fran Garry 2,3, Conor Byrne 1, Helen Phelan 2,3
Editor: Elias Garcia-Pelegrin4
PMCID: PMC9925065  PMID: 36780538

Abstract

Data literacy has been defined as “the ability to read, work with, analyze and argue with data”. The United Nations has highlighted a growing risk of inequality for people excluded from the new world of data by lack of education, language, poverty, and discrimination and has called for the development of data literacy at all levels of society. Responses to data are shaped by personal, social and cultural influences, as well as by trust in the source. The arts can play an important role in regulating our responses to information and increasing accessibility, engagement and sense-making of data. However, to our knowledge, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of publications on the role of the arts in the context of data literacy. This paper presents a protocol and a methodological framework to perform a scoping review to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy. The review aims to provide an overview of research over the past twenty years to develop a clearer understanding of (a) which art forms are represented in the literature (b) which population groups and settings are identified (c) and the rationale for using the arts to enhance data literacy.

Introduction

Technological advances have led to increased volumes of data being created and consumed in many areas of our lives including education, work, health and social interactions. This datafication of society has led to calls for the development of data literacy to inform and empower people living in the digital age [1]. There are multiple definitions of data literacy, depending on the field of study and context. Bhargava et al. [2] define it as “the ability to read, work with, analyze and argue with data” (p. 198). Gray et al. refer to the overlap with statistical literacy, where a set of skills are actively used to understand statistical information, but also include the ability to use data critically, to make ethical data decisions and address trust in data sources [3]. The ability to process and use information in different formats, assessing its credibility and relevance, is also considered a key component of health literacy [4].

The United Nations has highlighted a growing risk of inequality with many people excluded from the new world of data and information by lack of education, language, poverty, and discrimination and has called for the development of data literacy at all levels of society to fully implement the Sustainable Development Goals [5]. A lack of data literacy can limit people’s ability to identify mis- and disinformation, exposing them to risks in many areas of their lives [6]. Mis-information is “when false information is shared, but no harm is meant” (p. 5) [7]. Disinformation is “false information knowingly shared to cause harm” (p.5) [7]. Both can have negative impacts on people’s health and wellbeing and increase the risk of creating conflict and division in society [8].

There is a growing literature around the role of the arts in helping us regulate and adapt our responses to experiences and information [9] and an emerging literature on the arts as an entry point to develop data literacy [10]. STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education combines the arts with STEM subjects to increase creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving skills [11]. It is also used to engage students traditionally absent from STEM e.g. female students and to engage a variety of types of learners [12]. In the context of data literacy, Bhargava et al. used an arts-based intervention in socially divided communities in Brazil to help people feel less intimidated by data, think critically about the data gathering process, and generate a sustained interest in using data for storytelling and creating social change [2]. Data ‘sculptures’ i.e. physical manifestations of data, have also been used to engage novice learners with data and build self-efficacy [13]. Matuk et al. integrated arts and mathematics to develop middle school students’ data literacy through the use of a data drawing and data sculpture [14]. The goal was to encourage students to connect data with context, identify patterns and argue with data. DesPortes et al. reported on a co-designed data-dance unit where middle school students communicated graphical representations of data through dance to develop their sense making of data [15].

Despite the growing evidence of research in this area, to our knowledge, there has been no comprehensive review to date on the nature and scope of publications using the arts to enhance data literacy. This proposed scoping review aims to address this gap. Scoping reviews are a relatively recent method for synthesising research evidence. They involve similar approaches to other review processes (the use of transparent and clearly articulated search methods to collate, screen, summarize and interpret a body of literature) but differ in intent. The key purpose of a scoping review is to identify and map the available evidence in the field [16]. Scoping reviews are useful for mapping an emerging body of literature by location, time, discipline, context and study design, and can also identify gaps in the literature. Given the interdisciplinary and broad aim of this review, we have identified a scoping review as the most useful method for establishing the current state of the field on the role of the arts to enhance data literacy. This protocol outlines the process we will use to identify and map relevant literature.

The strategy developed in this protocol focuses on three key areas. The first of these is to identify which art forms (or combination of forms) are being reported in the published literature. There is existing evidence that visual art forms, particularly photography, are the most commonly used media in arts-based research generally [17] with less evidence for music, for example [18], however, we do not currently know whether this trend also exists in the use of the arts in data literacy projects.

A second key area of interest for this protocol is to identify which population groups and settings are represented in published work around the arts and data literacy. Specifically, we wish to enhance knowledge related to characteristics such as age profile (is it primarily used in the context of young person education for example?), gender, ethnicity and social group (are groups with limited access to data more or less represented in the literature?) and setting (e.g. is it primarily used in school settings, health settings or in the community?).

A third key area driving the review strategy is to develop enhanced understanding of the rationale for using the arts in the context of data literacy (e.g. is it used to increase accessibility, engagement, or develop critical thinking skills?).

This review will be carried out by a team of interdisciplinary scholars including artists and data scientists. We have identified the following key objectives:

  • Identify which art forms (or combination of forms) are being reported in the published literature.

  • Identify which population groups and settings are represented in the published literature.

  • Analyze the findings to increase understanding of the rationale for the use of the arts to enhance data literacy.

Table 1 presents definitions and inclusion/exclusion criteria related to the role of the arts in data literacy.

Table 1. Concepts, definitions and boundaries of the research question.

Concepts Associated Definitions Parameters for Inclusion & Exclusion
Data Literacy Data literacy has been defined as “the ability to read, work with, analyze and argue with data” (p.198) [2] Any research approach that integrates data literacy with the arts is included.
Research approaches that do not integrate data literacy with the arts are excluded.
The Arts “While the arts have always been conceptually difficult to define, there are a number of cross-cultural characteristics recognized as fundamental to art. These include the art object (whether physical or experiential) being valued in its own right rather than merely as a utility; providing imaginative experiences for both the producer and audience; and comprising or provoking an emotional response. In addition, the production of art is characterized by requiring novelty, creativity or originality; requiring specialized skills; and relating to the rules of form, composition or expression (either conforming or diverging)” (p.1) [9]. Studies that include a broad range of art forms are included.
Studies that focus on the use of the arts in the context of data literacy are included.
Studies that do not focus on the use of the arts in the context of data literacy are excluded.
The Arts Act, 2003, (Ireland) defines the arts as:
“any creative or interpretative expression (whether traditional or contemporary) in whatever form, and includes [visual arts, theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus and architecture”.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/act/24/enacted/en/html

Materials and methods

This protocol has been reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) [19] S1 Checklist.

Methodological framework

The proposed scoping review will utilize Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework which recommends five non-optional stages and an optional sixth stage: (i) Identifying the research question; (ii) Identifying relevant studies; (iii) Study selection; (iv) Charting the data; (v) Collating, summarizing, and reporting results; and (vi) Consultation [20]. As proposed by Levac et al., this scoping review will include the sixth ‘consultation’ phase as a necessary step in order to include the expertise of stakeholders in discussions around findings, recommendations for research and practice, and dissemination plans [21].

Stage 1: Identifying the research question

We used the Population Concept Context framework to develop our review question. The population is all human populations. The concept is the role of the arts and the context is data literacy. In line with the exploratory purpose of scoping reviews, we identified one key research question: What is the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy? Our key aim is to identify and map the available literature on the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy.

Eligibility criteria. Any research approach that uses the arts in the context of data literacy is included. Studies dating from 2002 to the commencement of the search are included. The time period reflects the relatively recent use of the term ‘data literacy’ [1]. Only studies in the English language are included. All population groups are included. All quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, reviews, books and book chapters, text and opinion papers, and grey literature that discuss the arts in the context of data literacy will be eligible for inclusion, as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Eligibility criteria.

Review Category Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Rationale
Population Any human study population None To conduct a broad search that includes any study population
Language Written in English Written in any language other than English Reviewers’ first language is English
Time Period 2002 to present Any publication outside of these dates For currency and to reflect the recent use of the term ‘data literacy’
Study Focus Publications on the use of the arts in the context of data literacy Publications that do not discuss the use of the arts in the context of data literacy To build an evidence base around the use of the arts to enhance data literacy
Types of Sources Journal articles, reviews, books, book chapters, text and opinion papers, web resources—grey literature (e.g. conference proceedings, theses/dissertations, reports). Book reviews Scoping studies can incorporate multiple study designs in either published or grey literature. The aim is to capture a comprehensive body of literature in the exploration of a broad research question.
Study Location Any study location None Data literacy is a concept used globally

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

Search strategy. All members of the interdisciplinary research team were involved in designing and developing the search strategy for the proposed scoping review. Multiple discussions led to collective agreement around the most appropriate definitions, concepts and terminology relating to our research question and objectives. Terms related to data literacy and the arts are given in Table 3. These will be used across all databases encompassing the disciplines of arts and humanities, social science, education, science and technology.

Table 3. Terms related to data literacy and the arts.

“Data literacy”
“Statistical literacy”
Arts including “literary arts”, “visual arts”, “performing arts”, “oral narrative arts”, “digital arts”, “electronic arts”, “online arts” 
poem
poetry
“creative writing”
novel*
story* including storytelling 
stories
photography
film including “documentary film”
video
drama
theatre including “video-recorded theatre” 
theater
puppetry
drawing 
collage
painting
graffiti
textile
mosaic*
masks
artefact
artifact
sculpture
singing
song*
music* including “musical instrument”
danc*
“live art”
“body art” 
“performance art” 
STEAM
SciArt
ArtScience

Preliminary searches were conducted in Scopus and Web of Science in title, abstract, keywords and subject heading fields. The search strategy will be adapted to suit each database and further refined in collaboration with a faculty librarian. The research team will meet regularly during the review process to discuss the efficacy of the search strategy, and any required refinements [20]. Comprehensive searches will be carried out in the following databases: ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Social Sciences Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A& I, and Google Scholar. This list may be refined due to the iterative nature of the review process. The reference lists of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional potentially relevant studies. Any changes in the search strategy will be documented and reported in the results paper. Table 4 provides examples of preliminary database searches conducted in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection.

Table 4. Examples of preliminary database searches.

Database: Scopus (searching ‘title, abstract and keywords’ field)
Date: 10/01/23
( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "data literacy" OR "statistical literacy" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( arts OR poem OR poetry OR "creative writing"
OR novel* OR story* OR stories OR photography OR film OR video OR
drawing OR collage OR painting OR graffiti OR textile* OR
mosaic* OR masks OR artefact OR artifact OR sculpture OR singing OR song*
OR music* OR danc* OR drama OR theatre OR theater OR puppetry OR "live art" OR "body art" OR "performance art"
OR STEAM OR ArtScience OR SciArt) ) AND PUBYEAR > 2001 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , "English" ) ) 
Results: 152 documents
Database: Web of Science Core Collection (searching ‘topic’ field: title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus).
(“data literacy” OR “statistical literacy”) AND (arts OR poem OR poetry OR "creative writing" OR novel* OR story* OR stories OR
photography OR film OR video OR drawing
OR collage OR painting OR graffiti OR textile* OR mosaic* OR masks OR
artefact OR artifact OR sculpture OR singing OR song* OR
music* OR danc* OR drama OR theatre OR 
theater OR puppetry OR "live art" OR "body art" OR "performance art" OR STEAM OR ArtScience OR SciArt) (Topic) and English (Languages)
Timespan: 2002-01-01 to 2023-01-10 (Publication Date).
Results: 121 documents

Stage 3: Study selection

Citations identified in the search will be compiled and exported to Endnote 20 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) bibliographic software, and duplicates will be removed. The screening process, by title and abstract, will be independently piloted by two reviewers on a subset of citations and then all citations will be screened, guided by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-texts of potentially relevant citations will be reviewed by two independent reviewers with disagreement resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Reasons for the exclusion of publications will be documented. These processes and results will be presented in a PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram [22]. We will use the PRISMA-ScR checklist to ensure adherence to best practice methods for conducting a scoping review.

Stage 4: Charting the data

Arksey and O’Malley note that the application of “a common analytical framework” through the collection of “standard information on each study” (p. 16) can yield more useful information than merely providing a summary of the identified studies [20]. To this end, we will use a chart organized in MS Excel for the data extraction process (Table 5). Standard recommended charting elements and questions relevant to this review will guide the charting process [23]. The chart includes additional rows in order to record how articles address the core concept of this review i.e. the role of the arts, in the context of data literacy. These additional rows will provide a foundation for the next stage of the review process, i.e. analysis of the data, reporting the results, and applying meaning to the review results [21]. The data extraction form will be trialed independently by two authors on the first ten included studies who will meet to ensure that the data extraction table accurately aligns with the key purpose of the review, and to discuss and agree on any necessary adaptations [21]. Table 5 outlines preliminary charting elements and questions which will guide the data extraction process.

Table 5. Preliminary charting elements and questions (adapted from [23, 25]).

Categories Questions
Publication Details
Author(s) Who are the authors of the publication?
Year of Publication When was the paper/study published?
Country of origin Where was the study carried out?
Publication Type Is the publication a journal article, book or book chapter, review, opinion paper, grey literature, other?
General Overview of Study
Aims or Purpose What were the aims or purpose of the study?
What was the rationale for using the arts?
Methodology What methodological design was utilized for the study?
Key findings relating to the role of the arts in data literacy
Methods What specific methods (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) were utilized?
Which art forms were used?
Was data literacy defined and if so, how?
Was data literacy measured and if so, how?
Was there an evaluation of the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy and if so, how?
Study Population What population groups are being studied in the literature?
What was the sample size?
Research Setting Was it a community-based setting?
Was it an educational setting?
Findings/results How have the arts been used to enhance data literacy?
Was the evaluation of the role of the arts positive, negative or mixed?

Stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

While incorporating rigorous and transparent methods, scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in that they are not required to include a critical appraisal of the sources of evidence [16, 20, 21]. We will analyze the evidence using descriptive numerical summaries and qualitative thematic analysis [22,24]. A descriptive numerical summary will outline the main characteristics of the included studies such as year of publication, country of origin, methodological design, study population and sample size, and art form used. In addition, a thematic summary will provide an overview of the literature on the use of the arts in the context of data literacy in line with our research question and key objectives [23]. Findings will be organized into thematic categories relating to research methods, key findings and research gaps. As recommended by Peters et al. [23], we will present the results in the context of the overall study purpose to describe and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy, and discuss implications in the broader context of future research and practice [21].

Stage 6: Consultation

As recommended by Levac et al., we will include consultation with stakeholders as a necessary component of the proposed scoping review [21]. This scoping review represents the work of the PART-IM (Participatory and Arts-Based Methods for Involving Migrants in Health Research) research cluster which brings together a multi-disciplinary group of scholars including the performing arts and data science. They will be invited to discuss and evaluate preliminary findings, and their perspectives will help to inform ideas around future research in this area [21]. We will also use the consultation stage to develop effective dissemination strategies with stakeholders in the field.

Discussion

Publishing a review protocol is increasingly considered best practice in evidence synthesis to increase transparency, reduce duplication and avoid publication bias [26]. It also facilitates assessment and feedback from the research community in advance of the review being conducted. This protocol outlines the process we will use to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy. It has been informed by preliminary searches, discussions and joint decisions in an interdisciplinary team and will guide the conduct and reporting of the review. We acknowledge that the search for studies in English language only is a limitation. We also acknowledge that this search is limited to academic products and may not capture all relevant outputs in this interdisciplinary space with the arts. The scoping review will, however, be an important step to describe and map the available academic evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P checklist.

(DOC)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

This work has been supported by the Irish Research Council https://research.ie/ under grant number COALESCE/2022/1664 (HP, AH). The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Pangrazio L, Sefton-Green J. The social utility of ‘data literacy’. Learning, Media and Technology. 2020. Apr 2;45(2):208–20. 10.1080/17439884.2020.1707223. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bhargava R, Kadouaki R, Bhargava E, Castro G, D’Ignazio C. Data murals: Using the arts to build data literacy. The Journal of Community Informatics. 2016. Oct 22;12(3):197–216. 10.15353/joci.v12i3.3285. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gray J, Gerlitz C, Bounegru L. Data infrastructure literacy. Big Data & Society. 2018. Jul;5(2):2053951718786316. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2053951718786316. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu C, Wang D, Liu C, Jiang J, Wang X, Chen H, et al. What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Family medicine and community health. 2020;8(2). doi: 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.United Nations (2017) The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/harnessing. Accessed May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Carmi E, Yates SJ, Lockley E, Pawluczuk A. Data citizenship: Rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Internet Policy Review. 2020;9(2):1–22. 10.14763/2020.2.1481. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wardle C, Derakhshan H. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report, 27.
  • 8.WHO (2020) Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation. Available at https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation. Accessed May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fancourt D, Finn S. What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/what-is-the-evidence-on-the-role-of-the-arts-in-improving-health-and-well-being-a-scoping-review-2019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.D’Ignazio C. Creative data literacy: Bridging the gap between the data-haves and data-have nots. Information Design Journal. 2017. Jan 1;23(1):6–18. D’Ignazio, C. (2017). 10.1075/idj.23.1.03dig. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mengmeng Z, Xiantong Y, Xinghua W. Construction of STEAM curriculum model and case design in kindergarten. American Journal of Educational Research. 2019. Jul 10;7(7):485–90. 10.12691/education-7-7-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Perignat E, Katz-Buonincontro J. STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking skills and creativity. 2019. Mar 1;31:31–43. 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bhargava R D ’Ignazio C. (2017). Data Sculptures as a Playful and Low-Tech Introduction to Working with Data. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/123453. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Matuk C, DesPortes K, Amato A, Silander M, Vacca R, Vasudevan V, et al. Challenges and opportunities in teaching and learning data literacy through art. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2021. 2021. International Society of the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.DesPortes K, Vacca R, Tes M, Woods PJ, Matuk C, Amato A, et al. Dancing with data: Embodying the numerical and humanistic sides of data. In Proceedings of the International Conference for the Learning Sciences 2022. The International Society for the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology. 2018. Dec;18(1):1–7. 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Coemans S, Hannes K. Researchers under the spell of the arts: Two decades of using arts-based methods in community-based inquiry with vulnerable populations. Educational Research Review. 2017. Nov 1;22:34–49. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Garry F, Tighe SM, MacFarlane A, Phelan H. The use of music as an arts-based method in migrant health research: a scoping review protocol. HRB Open Research. 2020;3. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13121.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Review. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Arksey H O ’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005. Feb 1;8(1):19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science. 2010. Dec;5(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018. Oct 2;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI manual for evidence synthesis, JBI. 2020;2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing. 2008. Apr;62(1):107–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nittas V, Mütsch M, Ehrler F, Puhan MA. Electronic patient-generated health data to facilitate prevention and health promotion: a scoping review protocol. BMJ open. 2018. Aug 1;8(8):e021245. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022. Apr 1;20(4):953–68. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcos André André Vannier-Santos

1 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-27966The role of the arts in enhancing data literacy: a scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear  Dr. Hannigan,

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 Jan 15 2023 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,

Marcos André André Vannier-Santos, 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"This work has been supported by the Irish Research Council https://research.ie/ under grant number COALESCE/2022/1664 (HP, AH)."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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.

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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This submission outlines a scoping review protocol intended to synthesize academic understanding of how, when, and where the arts is being used to enhance data literacy. The methods are sound in relation to other reviews I have read or taken part in. The resulting review would be a valuable contribution to the growing body of work on arts and data literacy in multiple settings.

Introduction:

The review of rationale and context is clear and easy to understand for readers. The citations included are contextually appropriately. I have concerns about the scope being limited to academic products, because my personal experience in the field has shown numerous examples in k-12 learning settings that aren't producing formal academic outputs, and data art pieces in gallery settings. This is a well-known concern in mixed space reviews such as this one, so I encourage the authors to engage it and acknowledge it as a limitation to the methods.

Materials and Methods

I am unfamiliar with scoping reviews, but they are summarized effectively for me. The queries in Table 3 needs some work - there are multiple examples of overlapping clauses (if I've understood the boolean syntax correctly). For instance, once "arts" is included there is no need to include "literary arts", "visual arts", etc. And "danc*" likely matches "dance" so that is redundant; same for "music*" and "musical instrument". In addition some clauses should be more generic, such as using "mosaic*" instead of "mosaics". These detailed comments should be taken in context of the search platform, whose syntax I am not an expert on (ie. does it auto-stem? match partial words? etc). I also might suggest including the phrase "performance", to capture the telling of a data story though arts means.

Other comments:

The process will necessitate some hard-to-describe subjective judgements on inclusion/exclusion. This will make replication difficult, but the dual-review nature described should allow for transparency on application of the criteria.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript outlines a protocol to guide a scoping review aiming to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy. It is a very interesting topic and, in my opinion, the protocol is well conceived and proposed, deserving publication,

I have concerns on the abstract and the text (discussion), as follows:

Abstract: should indicate more precisely what has been done. It states “ to date, there has been no comprehensive review of publications on the role of the arts in the context of data literacy” and it follows… “The key aim of this proposed scoping review is to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy.” The reader concludes that the paper will perform the scoping review. However, in the next sentence we discover that the paper proposes a protocol to perform the scoping review on this subject. The frustration of reading a paper with an expectation and not finding the final review should be mitigated with a starting statement in the abstract clearly showing its goal (my suggestion): “This paper presents a protocol and a search strategy framework to perform a scoping review to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy”. PLOS ONE welcomes original research submissions from the natural sciences, medical research, engineering, as well as the related social sciences and humanities, including (…) Protocols (…) that describe detailed plans for research projects. It is the case in the present manuscript, that fits PLOS ONE scope.

The text:

The authors adequately justify the need of the scoping review, present 4 Tables describing the concepts, definitions, and boundaries of the research question (Table 1), the eligibility criteria (Table 2), two examples of preliminary database searches (Table 3) showing 110 documents retrieved using the proposed strategy search in Scopus database, and 98 documents in Web of Science Core Collection, and preliminary charting elements and questions (Table 4) to apply in the documents found. The result is the proposed protocol as a methodological framework, which is interesting. Discussion could comment on some limitations of the study protocol. I can indicate at least 3:

(1) the use of a short ten-year period (>2012 publications), justified as “for currency”, but incompatible with the date of year of the Ottawa charter for health promotion (1986); the Fancourt and Finn scoping review published by WHO in 2019 relating the role of the arts and health cited in ref #9 presents 962 references, and the choice of starting this new scoping review at 2012 is not obvious nor necessarily adequate.

(2) the option for including only publications written in English: given that authors will search other sources that English-written databases (ERIC, Scholar google, grey literature, etc), it is a limitation to exclude, at least, French, Spanish or Portuguese written documents.

(3) the absence of the keyword ArtScience or SciArt, since STEAM is an acronym that does not represent all emerging literature on the arts as an entry point to science evidence.

Independently of these concerns, my overall opinion on the paper is that it deserves publication due to the originality and relevance of the subject, and adequacy of methodology.

********** 

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: Yes: TANIA C. ARAUJO-JORGE

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 13;18(2):e0281749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281749.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jan 2023

We thank the reviewers for their positive and constructive feedback, which is particularly useful at this protocol stage of our project. We have addressed their comments on a point to point basis below.

Reviewer #1: This submission outlines a scoping review protocol intended to synthesize academic understanding of how, when, and where the arts is being used to enhance data literacy. The methods are sound in relation to other reviews I have read or taken part in. The resulting review would be a valuable contribution to the growing body of work on arts and data literacy in multiple settings.

Response of the authors: Thank you for the positive feedback on our review protocol.

Introduction:

The review of rationale and context is clear and easy to understand for readers. The citations included are contextually appropriately. I have concerns about the scope being limited to academic products, because my personal experience in the field has shown numerous examples in k-12 learning settings that aren't producing formal academic outputs, and data art pieces in gallery settings. This is a well-known concern in mixed space reviews such as this one, so I encourage the authors to engage it and acknowledge it as a limitation to the methods.

Response of the authors: We agree that this is a limitation of our review and have now added a sentence acknowledging this in the Discussion - ‘We acknowledge that this search is limited to academic products and may not capture all relevant outputs in this interdisciplinary space with the arts.’

Materials and Methods

I am unfamiliar with scoping reviews, but they are summarized effectively for me. The queries in Table 3 needs some work - there are multiple examples of overlapping clauses (if I've understood the boolean syntax correctly). For instance, once "arts" is included there is no need to include "literary arts", "visual arts", etc. And "danc*" likely matches "dance" so that is redundant; same for "music*" and "musical instrument". In addition some clauses should be more generic, such as using "mosaic*" instead of "mosaics". These detailed comments should be taken in context of the search platform, whose syntax I am not an expert on (ie. does it auto-stem? match partial words? etc). I also might suggest including the phrase "performance", to capture the telling of a data story though arts means.

Response of the authors: Thank you for the feedback on the search terms. We have included a new Table 3 with all terms of interest. We have also revised the search terms for the two databases in Table 4, removing overlapping terms and using wildcards where appropriate. We have added “performance art” as a search term. Other types of performance will be captured using the search terms e.g. story, arts, theatre. The preliminary searches have been re-run with the expanded date range (see response to reviewer 2) and the changes in search terms. The results are given in Table 4.

Other comments:

The process will necessitate some hard-to-describe subjective judgements on inclusion/exclusion. This will make replication difficult, but the dual-review nature described should allow for transparency on application of the criteria.

Response of the authors: We agree with the importance of transparency on applying the criteria and that the dual-review will help with this. We will also document reasons for exclusion during the process at the full-text screening stage.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript outlines a protocol to guide a scoping review aiming to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy. It is a very interesting topic and, in my opinion, the protocol is well conceived and proposed, deserving publication.

Response of the authors: Thank you for the positive feedback on our review protocol.

I have concerns on the abstract and the text (discussion), as follows:

Abstract: should indicate more precisely what has been done. It states “ to date, there has been no comprehensive review of publications on the role of the arts in the context of data literacy” and it follows… “The key aim of this proposed scoping review is to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy.” The reader concludes that the paper will perform the scoping review. However, in the next sentence we discover that the paper proposes a protocol to perform the scoping review on this subject. The frustration of reading a paper with an expectation and not finding the final review should be mitigated with a starting statement in the abstract clearly showing its goal (my suggestion): “This paper presents a protocol and a search strategy framework to perform a scoping review to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy”. PLOS ONE welcomes original research submissions from the natural sciences, medical research, engineering, as well as the related social sciences and humanities, including (…) Protocols (…) that describe detailed plans for research projects. It is the case in the present manuscript, that fits PLOS ONE scope.

Response of the authors: We acknowledge that the abstract could have been clearer that this is a protocol and have now amended it to include the sentence suggested by the reviewer with the addition of methodological framework – “This paper presents a protocol and a methodological framework to perform a scoping review to identify and map the available evidence for the role of the arts in enhancing data literacy.”

The text:

The authors adequately justify the need of the scoping review, present 4 Tables describing the concepts, definitions, and boundaries of the research question (Table 1), the eligibility criteria (Table 2), two examples of preliminary database searches (Table 3) showing 110 documents retrieved using the proposed strategy search in Scopus database, and 98 documents in Web of Science Core Collection, and preliminary charting elements and questions (Table 4) to apply in the documents found. The result is the proposed protocol as a methodological framework, which is interesting.

Response of the authors: Thank you for the positive feedback on our methodological framework.

Discussion could comment on some limitations of the study protocol. I can indicate at least 3:

(1) the use of a short ten-year period (>2012 publications), justified as “for currency”, but incompatible with the date of year of the Ottawa charter for health promotion (1986); the Fancourt and Finn scoping review published by WHO in 2019 relating the role of the arts and health cited in ref #9 presents 962 references, and the choice of starting this new scoping review at 2012 is not obvious nor necessarily adequate.

Response of the authors: We acknowledge that the starting point for the review (2012) is arbitrary. We have now extended our search from 2002 to date (20 years) and have justified this by the use of relatively recent used of the term ‘data literacy’ which is rarely used before 2002 (we have found no references pre-2002 in preliminary searches). The preliminary searches have been re-run with the expanded date range and the changes in search terms. The results are given in Table 4.

(2) the option for including only publications written in English: given that authors will search other sources that English-written databases (ERIC, Scholar google, grey literature, etc), it is a limitation to exclude, at least, French, Spanish or Portuguese written documents.

Response of the authors: we acknowledge English language only is a limitation of this review (constrained by the first language of the authors) and have now acknowledged this in the discussion.

(3) the absence of the keyword ArtScience or SciArt, since STEAM is an acronym that does not represent all emerging literature on the arts as an entry point to science evidence.

Response of the authors: Thank you for this important point. We have now added ArtScience and SciArt as potential terms for the search strategy in addition to STEAM in a new Table 3 and a revised search strategy in Table 4.

Independently of these concerns, my overall opinion on the paper is that it deserves publication due to the originality and relevance of the subject, and adequacy of methodology.

Response of the authors: Thank you for the positive feedback on our paper.

Response to academic editor

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

Response of the authors: we have checked that the style of our manuscript follows the guidelines and used the requested file names.

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This work has been supported by the Irish Research Council https://research.ie/ under grant number COALESCE/2022/1664 (HP, AH)."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response of the authors: we have amended the funding statement to "This work has been supported by the Irish Research Council https://research.ie/ under grant number COALESCE/2022/1664 (HP, AH). There was no additional external funding received for this study”.

3. 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.

Response of the authors: We have included a caption for the supporting information file at the end of our manuscript and updated the in-text citation.

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.

Response of the authors: We have checked our reference list. There are no changes.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Elias Garcia-Pelegrin

1 Feb 2023

The role of the arts in enhancing data literacy: a scoping review protocol

PONE-D-22-27966R1

Dear Dr. Hannigan,

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,

Elias Garcia-Pelegrin, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have addressed all the reviewer comments adequately, I am very pleased to be able to recommend acceptance at PLOS ONE.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have accepted and correctly addressed all the points that the reviewers raised upon the first version. The paper deserves publication

**********

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 #2: Yes: TANIA C. ARAUJO JORGE

**********

Acceptance letter

Elias Garcia-Pelegrin

3 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-27966R1

The role of the arts in enhancing data literacy: a scoping review protocol

Dear Dr. Hannigan:

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. Elias Garcia-Pelegrin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P checklist.

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES