The effect of using light emitting diodes and fluorescent lamps as different light sources in growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria

Akira Okamoto; Miyuki Imamura; Kazune Tani; Takeru Matsumoto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247426

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 14, 2020
3 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Christophe Hano, Editor PONE-D-20-28966 Effects of different lighting sources on the growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Okamoto, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Christophe Hano Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: "The authors received no specific funding for this work." We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: "Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.," a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 ****** 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: Recommendation: Minor concerns The manuscript entitled, “Effects of different lighting sources on the growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria” represents very interesting results, however, there are some minor concern regarding this study. If these concerns/queries are satisfied, it can be considered for publication. Research title: •The title of research “effects of different lighting sources” is very general, rephrase it. In abstract section: •Please add an introductory line about why algal growth inhibition test is performed, discuss rationale behind the research. In introduction section: •Line 44, 45, please elaborate if LED or FL is better? This literature does not support or negate the research study. •Line 51, “algal growth inhibition tests” are cultured or algae are cultured? •Line 57-58, “as no comparison test between LED and FL was conducted” please rephrase it with “has been conducted”. •Please mention about the role of LED/FL illumination in algal growth inhibition tests. In methodology and results section: •This section is fine, and methodology and results are in coherence with each other. •However, the figures added could be of better resolution. In discussion section: •Please improve the discussion section, and make your research work more attractive. •Line 213, this information is not present in the cited reference 10. Please, check. References: •The references are not uniformly cited, e.g. reference 10, journal name is abbreviated while rest are not. Reviewer #2: Comment and suggestion to authors: PONE-D-20-28966 Titled: "Effects of different lighting sources on the growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria". 1)In this manuscript, the authors compared only between fluorescent lamp and light-emitting diode as the lighting sources, so it may not suitable to use the title “Effects of different lighting sources…..”. It would be better to improve the title to be more specific and clearer. 2)This study employed only 1 species for green alga, 1 species for diatom and 1 species for cyanobacteria, why did each species can be the representative species to evaluate the effect of different lighting sources on the growth inhibition? This point should be clarified in the manuscript. 3)Why did Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Navicula pelliculosa, and Anabaena flos-aquae is suitable for this study? Why don’t the authors used other species or more number of species for their experiment? This point should be clarified in the manuscript as well. 4)There are some spelling mistakes and grammatical error found in this manuscript, the author should pay more attention on this point and check the whole manuscript before re-submission. ****** 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: Yes:** Amna Khan Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247426.r001
Revision 1
16 Dec 2020 Author Response Dear Christophe Hano, 1. We changed manuscript to Plos One style. 2. We changed the Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement. Funding Statement “Although the author is employed by Nippon Soda and receives an annual salary, the company did not provide financial assistance or funding, and only provided equipment and facilities. Nippon Soda did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Competing Interests Statement “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Reviewer 1 •The title of research “effects of different lighting sources” is very general, rephrase it. We revised title: The effect of using light emitting diodes and fluorescent lamps as different light sources in growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria •Please add an introductory line about why algal growth inhibition test is performed, discuss rationale behind the research. We added sentence (LINE 13, 14): Aquatic organisms have been used to investigate the safety of chemicals worldwide. One such assessment is an algal growth inhibition test. •Line 44, 45, please elaborate if LED or FL is better? This literature does not support or negate the research study. We added sentence (LINE 48-53): LEDs have also been used for illumination in greenhouse plants. Singh D et al. (2015) said “It is necessary to further investigate the not yet fully understood physiological processes mediating plant responses to LED light; however, economic analysis has clearly shown that LEDs can reduce the electricity cost, and investment (high capital cost) will be returned as profit in long-term operations in greenhouse industries” [5]. Reports about the effect of LEDs on plant growth have led to several studies comparing LEDs with FLs. We added our thought in the conclusion: LEDs thus appear advantageous over FLs in algal growth inhibition tests. •Line 51, “algal growth inhibition tests” are cultured or algae are cultured? We revised sentence (LINE 59, 60): Currently, algae in algal growth inhibition tests are commonly cultured using growth chambers with FLs. •Line 57-58, “as no comparison test between LED and FL was conducted” please rephrase it with “has been conducted”. We revised sentence (LINE 66). •Please mention about the role of LED/FL illumination in algal growth inhibition tests. We added sentence (LINE 67, 68): Light is essential for the growth of algae, and light sources are therefore important for algal growth inhibition tests. •However, the figures added could be of better resolution. We revised figure resolution. •Please improve the discussion section, and make your research work more attractive. We added sentence (Line 263-270). Moreover, LEDs are being used increasingly in the commercial field where it is shown that the initial high capital cost of LEDs is returned as profit in certain sectors due to numerous advantages over FLs. Furthermore, LEDs do not contain mercury and have a low health impact due to low UV. LEDs have benefits in terms of decreased electricity cost and the reduced negative impact on the health of environmental organisms (including humans). In addition, they do not differ from conventional lighting sources when promoting growth of plants (including algae). LEDs thus appear advantageous over FLs in algal growth inhibition tests. •Line 213, this information is not present in the cited reference 10. Please, check. References: We revised the reference on Line 213. We added a reference, therefore the reference number did not change. •The references are not uniformly cited, e.g. reference 10, journal name is abbreviated while rest are not. We revised reference style. Reviewer 2 1. We revised title: The effect of using light emitting diodes and fluorescent lamps as different light sources in growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria 2. We added sentence (LINE 71-74). We selected P. subcapitata, N. pelliculosa, and A. flos-aquae because these algae are used to evaluate the ecotoxicity of industrial chemicals and pesticides and are recommended in test guidelines. 3. We added sentence (LINE 86-88). P. subcapitata, A. flos-aquae and N. pelliculosa were used for this study because these algae are recommended in OECD test guideline No.201, OCSPP number 850.4500 and 850.4550. 4. This manuscript was checked by native check service before the resubmission. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247426.r002
5 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Christophe Hano, Editor PONE-D-20-28966R1 The effect of using light emitting diodes and fluorescent lamps as different light sources in growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Okamoto, 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 Feb 19 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Christophe Hano 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 ******** 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: Partly ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Comment and suggestion to authors: PONE-D-20-28966 1) The author addressed all the comments, but some answers are not so reasonable to be accepted in PLOS ONE. For example, the previous comment 3: “3) Why did Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Navicula pelliculosa, and Anabaena flos-aquae is suitable for this study? Why don’t the authors used other species or more number of species for their experiment? “ The authors responded that “This point should be clarified in the manuscript as well. We added sentence (LINE 86-88). P. subcapitata, A. flos-aquae and N. pelliculosa were used for this study because these algae are recommended in OECD test guideline No.201, OCSPP number 850.4500 and 850.4550. We could not conduct algal growth inhibition tests with other species, because we cannot buy fluorescent lamp.“ It can be understood, if the authors could not conduct algal growth inhibition tests with other species. But the acceptable reason should not be “we cannot buy fluorescent lamp”. An important criterion for the research that will be published in PLOS ONE is “Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.” 2) There are some spelling mistakes and grammatical error remained in this manuscript, the author should pay more attention on this point and check the whole manuscript before re-submission. For example, in the punctuation marks in introduction section ….. “phosphor-converted (pc)-LEDs and FLs have similar emission spectra, so 63 pc-LEDs may be suitable as an FL replacement within the same color temperature range 64 without causing significant changes in algal growth rates and biochemical properties [10]….. The authors started to use quotation marks without ending it. ****** 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: Yes:** Amna Khan Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247426.r003
Revision 2
14 Jan 2021 Author Response I appreciate your kind confirmation our manuscript during your busy time. We agree with you and revised our manuscript. 1) We revised LINE 86–89. “P. subcapitata, N. pelliculosa, and A. flos-aquae are recommended in OECD test guideline No. 201 and OCSPP number 850.4500 and 850.4550 [6–8], and the test methods are internationally recognized. Moreover, the results of these species are required in registrations of pesticides or industrial chemicals. Therefore, these three algal species were used for this study.” 2) This manuscript was checked and revised by native speaker of English before the re-submission. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247426.r004
8 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Christophe Hano, Editor The effect of using light emitting diodes and fluorescent lamps as different light sources in growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria PONE-D-20-28966R2 Dear Dr. Okamoto, 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, Christophe Hano Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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. 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 #2: Thanks for the revised version, the manuscript can be accepted to publish this time. However, some minor grammatical errors are remained in this manuscript. ****** 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: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247426.r005
Formally Accepted
10 Feb 2021 Acceptance Letter - Christophe Hano, Editor PONE-D-20-28966R2 The effect of using light emitting diodes and fluorescent lamps as different light sources in growth inhibition tests of green alga, diatom, and cyanobacteria Dear Dr. Okamoto: 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. Christophe Hano Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247426.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 .