Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Formatting errors introduced by PLOS One

Posted by deevybee on 04 Aug 2016 at 05:03 GMT

I regret that the formatting of the pdf version of this article impairs readability.
The authors had formatted the article so that the 27 statements were distinctive, but we were asked to remove that formatting from the manuscript version of the document.
At this point we did not realise that PLOS One no longer provides authors with page proofs, since this is a change in their previous practice. Had we been able to check proofs, we would have pointed out that in the pdf version, the statements do not stand out and are in some cases run in with the prior heading. The “Supplementary Comments” on each statement have more prominence than the statements themselves.
PLOS One editorial staff tell us they are not able to correct formatting errors

No competing interests declared.