Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Referee Comments: Referee 2

Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 18 May 2007 at 12:00 GMT

Reviewer #2's Review

“The paper from Richaud et al was interesting but it includes some previously published data and a very extensive review of the literature covering a multitude of genes discovered in the array analysis. The array results do merit publication but the analysis has to be written in a way that is more easily understood by the reader, with less detail and more broad conclusions, supported by the data. Much of the current figure/ analysis could be provided as supplementary information available for those readers wishing to get a more detailed account of the array data.”

n.b. These are the general comments made by the reviewer when reviewing this paper. Specific points addressed during revision of the paper are not shown.

RE: Referee Comments: Referee 2

WvanSchaik replied to PLOS_ONE_Group on 24 May 2007 at 09:52 GMT

I am somewhat surprised to find reviewer's comments posted as an annotation to this paper. Aren't they supposed to be confidential? And what does the reader win by knowing what a single reviewer thought of this paper? Finally, who are the PLoS_ONE_Group (editors? publishers?) and why have they decided to post these comments?

I have no particular interest in this specific paper, but I am interested to know what PLoS ONE's guidelines are in respect to posting (parts of) reviewers' comments.

RE: RE: Referee Comments: Referee 2

PLOS_ONE_Group replied to WvanSchaik on 05 Sep 2007 at 06:23 GMT

Only the General Comments by referees who give explicit approval are added to the papers. The referees may choose to reveal their identities or not. The idea is to increase transparency and improve the review process.