Diagnostic value of ASVS for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hao Wang; Ying Ba; Qian Xing; Run-Ce Cai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224928

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 26, 2019
28 Jun 2019 Decision Letter - Wisit Cheungpasitporn, Editor PONE-D-19-14887 Diagnostic value of ASVS for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hao Wang, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Although it is of interest, the reviewers have raised a number of points which we believe major modifications are necessary to improve the manuscript, taking into account the reviewers' remarks. ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 12 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols 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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wisit Cheungpasitporn, MD, FACP University of Mississippi Medical Center Twitter: @wisit661 Email: wcheungpasitporn@gmail.com Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication, which needs to be addressed: Wang, Hao, et al. "Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis." PloS one 13.10 (2018): e0206099. In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. Please provide an institutional email address for each author. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: NO Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares all the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. 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." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No 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: 1. Pathology diagnosis prior to year of 2000 likely are not accurate. Please perform sensitivity analysis excluding those 1990s studies. 2. Need to provide supplementary data on pathology in each study for the diagnosis of insulinoma. 3. Manuscript is very poor written in English. For example, "Chian" in table is not correct country. "Zealand" is not correct. There are also many errors throughout manuscripts. Reviewer #2: This meta-analysis has not been registered online. Please add this point in the limitation. Who are two independent investigators? It will be better to show kappa for the selection and data extraction. Please show the data of kappa of agreement during the systematic searches. How disagreements were solved during the systematic search among two independent reviewers? Search terms in PubMed and Embase are different. Please attach syntax used in each database as supplementary. Please make the data for this review publicly available, possibly through the Open Science Framework (osf.io). Items to include: list of excluded studies, commands for statistical analysis, spreadsheets or data used for the meta-analyses, etc. Making data publicly available will promote the reproducibility of the review and is best practices for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors should discuss the reason of heterogeneity. Please include I2 in the abstract. It is “fixed-effects model and random-effects model”, not “fixed-effects model and random effect model”. Revision of the English writing is strongly recommended. There are many grammar errors and misspells. Reviewer #3: The review is concise and relatively easy to read. However, there are several important points which should be addressed. I was unable to determine if all the relevant articles had been included for review. Two studies which could be included also would be 1. Placzkowski, Vella et al: JCEM 2009;94:1069 which describes trends in the use of success of the technique from the Mayo Clinic. 2.Thompson, Vella et al:JCEM 2015;100:4189 Also, the use of meta-analysis/ systematic review should also recognise that the results of the studies would also be highly dependent on the expertise and experience of the individual radiologist/ institution. Techniques presumably also have improved through the years- which should also be taken into account. Mention should also be made of the potential role of GLP-RA labelled nuclear scans which in some hands appear to provide greater sensitivity and specificity than the more invasive tests. I presume that the techniques used are sound otherwise. ****** 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: 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224928.r001
Revision 1
13 Aug 2019 Author Response 1 We have read your model carefully and revised the article according to the model. 2 For the overlapping section, we have modified it. 3 Sorry, we have not institutional email address. 4 we have not any funding or sources of support. 1 We write this meta-analysis in strict accordance with the standard format of meta-analysis, search the relevant literature correctly, extract data, and draw data and conclusions through correct statistical analysis. 2 Our statistics are carried out in accordance with the normal diagnostic meta-analysis, strictly according to the input and output criteria into the relevant research. After extracting the data, according to TP FP FN TN, using STATA Software 14.0 for meta-analysis, using random effect model analysis. 3 We provide the full text of the study and present the data in tabular form. We have no restrictions on the sharing of documentary data. 4 English is not our mother tongue, but after we finish writing the article, we invite English experts to translate and polish it. 5 Reviewer #1: 1. As you said, pathology diagnosis prior to year of 2000 likely are not accurate. But we carefully read the three studies published 2000 years ago. These three studies were published in rigorous and regular clinical journals. The diagnosis of insulinoma is clear through clinical manifestations(Whipple's triad syndrome), biochemical tests(Hyperinsulinemia), surgery and so on. We believe that the diagnosis is reliable, so the data of these three studies are still retained. 2. We provided the pathological results of each study. 3. Thank you ,teacher. We know the manuscript is very poor written in English.But we did our best to improve it, and invite native language editors to translate and polish it in English. Reviewer #2: Two independent investigators refer to Hao Wang and Ying Ba, Later, the article was also marked. When we collect data, we have strict requirements for the operation process and set the Kappa standard. Search syntax: PubMed indexed the collected data according to the medical thesaurus. Thesaurus retrieval can improve the efficiency of literature retrieval. MeSH network version is integrated in PubMed database. The application of MeSH Database can determine the standard search terms, view the annotations of word meanings, tree structure tables, view the sub-headings and extensions. PubMed search supports Boolean logic operations, AND, OR, NOT. It can be retrieved by AND, OR and NOT combined subject words and free words. Choosing appropriate subject words and free words retrieval can be more comprehensive and accurate. So we use the search strategy in PubMed: “arterial calcium stimulation” AND “insulinoma” [MeSH] Embase provides an Independent Thesaurus Retrieval System (EMTREE). EMTREE thesaurus is one of the most powerful retrieval tools of Embase. EMTREE contains more than 54,000 preferred terms, more than 2.1 million synonyms and multi-level tree structure. The use of EMTREE keyword retrieval can improve the comprehensiveness and accuracy of literature retrieval.So we use the search strateg in Embase: Emtree term–exploded = (insulinoma AND arterial calcium stimulation) During the systematic search when we meet disagreement, we negotiate. For example, Ying Ba want include a Chinese article about ASVS, but I don't think it's right because the article published in an informal magazine. I can't confirm its scientific nature. Later Ying Ba agreed with me. We already discuss the reason of heterogeneity. We already include I2 in the abstract. English is not our first language, but after we finish writing the article, we invite English experts to translate and polish it. Reviewer #3:Thank you for your comments. We actually notice the two article before. We have read these two articles carefully and thought that these two articles are very helpful to study the diagnostic value of ASVS in localizing insulinoma, however, in "Placzkowski, Vella et al." 's article, ASVS has only mention positive diagnostic rate. There is no specific data, and there is no data of non-insulinoma control group, so we have not included in this study. For Thompson, Vella et al, they studied the differential diagnosis of insulinoma and islet hyperplasia by ASVS. We also thought it's a very good study.However,we believe that there is a lack of data for the control group of non-insulinoma and non-islet hyperplasia. Because in the study of ASVS, besides the positive rate of ASVS in insulinoma and islet hyperplasia, the negative rate of non-insulinoma and islet hyperplasia is also important, In theory, both insulinoma and islet proliferation should have insulin secretion after calcium stimulation. So we have not included this study. However, in the discussion, we quoted Thompson, Vella 's article. Because this article is indeed a good study of ASVS in the differential diagnosis of insulinoma and islet hyperplasia. As you suggest, We already mention the potential role of GLP-RA labelled nuclear scans which in some hands appear to provide greater sensitivity and specificity than the more invasive tests. 6 We agree to our identity to be public for this peer review Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter to reviewers.txt https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224928.r002
2 Sep 2019 Decision Letter - Wisit Cheungpasitporn, Editor PONE-D-19-14887R1 Diagnostic value of ASVS for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Hao Wang, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Our expert reviewers still have raised a number of points which we believe major modifications are necessary to improve the manuscript, taking into account the reviewers' remarks below. ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 17 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols 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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wisit Cheungpasitporn, MD, FACP Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: It appears that all comments have been appropriately responded to. I have no further comments and recommend publication. Reviewer #2: Much improved manuscript from prior version. The paper, in its revised form, is suitable for publication Reviewer #3: The authors have improved the manuscript with corrections to grammatical mistakes seen in the first submission. There is an attempt to discuss the findings in more detail and to answer the queries of the reviewers. However, there still needs to be acknowledgement of the wide range of expertise in the use of this investigation which would have significant implications on the results. GLP 1 receptor imaging needs to be included in the discussion in some detail as a noninvasive technique to locate the insulinoma. There is also a relative paucity of published studies overall with less positive experiences likely not submitted for 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224928.r003
Revision 2
21 Sep 2019 Author Response responds to academic editor 1. We have deposited my laboratory protocols in protocols.io. We get the DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/ protocols.io.7imhkc6. 2. We have no change to my financial disclosure. 3. We have upload the revision of my manuscript according to your direction. Responds to the reviewers: 1. Thank you. We have addressed reviewers’ comments raised in a previous round of review. 2. The manuscript was written in accordance with normal criteria of standard diagnostic meta analysis. So We think it is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions. 3. The manuscript comply with the Standard Writing of Meta-analysis. And We think statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously. 4. All data underlying the findings described in the manuscript fully available without restriction. We already deposited the meta analysis and the relevant data and step to a public repository. We got the DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/ protocols.io.7imhkc6. 5. After we have finished the paper, we invited several mother tongue editor to polish the language. 6. Dear teacher,Thank you very much for your instruction. We also think that the wide range of expertise in the use of this investigation which would have significant implications on the results. For the role of GLP 1 receptor imaging in the localization of insulinoma, we also searched a lot of literature, and made a more detailed discussion. 7. Thanks for the peer review. We learnt a lot. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224928.r004
25 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Wisit Cheungpasitporn, Editor Diagnostic value of ASVS for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-19-14887R2 Dear Dr. Hao Wang, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Wisit Cheungpasitporn, MD, FACP Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: I want to commend the authors on their superb efforts to revise the manuscript according to all reviewers’ suggestions. The quality of the manuscript has improved substantially. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 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. 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: It appears that all comments have been appropriately responded to. I have no further comments and recommend publication. Reviewer #2: Very important research, much needed. The investigators have addressed all comments and concerns appropriately. I have no additional concerns. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224928.r005
Formally Accepted
29 Oct 2019 Acceptance Letter - Wisit Cheungpasitporn, Editor PONE-D-19-14887R2 Diagnostic value of ASVS for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Wang: I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Wisit Cheungpasitporn Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224928.r006

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 .