https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2367-3051
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 15, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-07498 Fear of pain moderates the relationship between fatigue perception and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in fibromyalgia patients PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferrera, 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 Aug 14 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:
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, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, MEd, MS, FAAN 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 2. Please note that according to our submission guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines), outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology. For example: “Caucasian” should be changed to “white” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate). [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: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Comments Introduction - The gene symbols need to be italicized. - The discussion on how fatigue is important in this population should be added - The reason for examining the association between this genotypes and fatigue should be included. - There are a good number of studies investigate the association between COMT and fatigue in Irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, Chronic fatigue syndrome that could be used to support the relationship between the COMT and fatigue. This discussion should be included in the introduction - 4 line 85, rechecked the statement. The previous section discussed about the relationships between the COMT genotypes and catastrophism. Material and methods - Participants: The ACR published several version of the diagnostic criteria. Give a specific year for the criteria used for this study. - Add data collection procedure section to include the process on when and how the data (questionnaire and saliva) were collected - Include the ethical consideration for clinical trials - Include the variables and measures in the method session Result: - Line 120 to 147 should be in the result section - Table 1 should be included in the result section - Are there any potential impact of medication of the level of biomarkers? - Line 272 typo on the figure number Discussion - Should include the unique finding of the association between the COMT and fatigue in this study (fibromyalgia) compared to evidence from other literature - Are there any limitation of using the VAS (1 item) to measure fatigue in this study? Reviewer #2: Fear of pain moderates the relationship between fatigue perception and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in fibromyalgia patients The authors describe an interesting study, in which they are aiming to relate COMT genotypes with psychological symptoms (e.g. catastrophizing, fear of pain) and physical outcomes (pain, fatigue). Their key findings are that 1) there are no differences in COMT genotypes across patients with fibromyalgia and controls; 2) there are no differences in psychological symptoms across COMT genotypes, but they do find interactions showing that Met/Met and Val/Val genotypes show higher fatigue compared to Met/Val; and 3) in a moderation analysis in fibromyalgia only, they found that fear of (medical) pain is a significant moderator for the relation between COMT genotype (Met/Met and Met/Val vs Val/Val) and fatigue in that only those patients with Met/Met or Met/Val AND higher fear of (medical) pain show increased fatigue. Although the research questions are of interest to the field, the sample is decent and the study has potential to make an important contribution, I struggle with their some decisions in their analyses as well as their conclusions, which are not supported by the data (at least not by how the results are presented). I will explain my comments in more detail below in a way that I hope is useful for the authors. Major points The conclusions of the paper state that “fibromyalgia patients carrying the Met/Met genotype showed higher fatigue scores than patients carrying other genotypes.” According to their results though, both those carrying Met/Met as well as those with Val/Val showed higher fatigue scores compared to Met/Val. Thus, part of their conclusion as well as interpretations related to the lower COMT activity of Met/Met are not supported by the data, and maybe even misleading. In addition, while they find differential effects for patients with Met/Val genotypes in terms of fatigue, they decided to group these together with Met/Met to represent ‘low activity’ in contrast to Val/Val (‘high activity’) in the moderation analyses. This does not make sense and can create a bias in the results. I would suggest to either always use the three groups or always take Met/Met and Met/Val together. Other points *I would rephrase ‘fibromyalgia patients’ into patients or individuals with fibromyalgia (across the entire manuscript) and stay away from the term ‘subjects’ altogether (and rather say ‘participants’). *The manuscript is generally written in an understandable and clear manner, yet it would benefit from review by a native English speaker. *The tables do not support the written results in that they do not contain the most relevant information. For instance, Table 3 presents differences across medication groups (which is only a control analysis), but differences across COMT groups are only presented in Supplement (while these are quite important). *I think the authors mean ‘catastrophizing’ instead of ‘catastrophism’. *I would have liked to see a bit more introduction or discussion on mechanisms underlying the effect of COMT; as in: how are catecholamines involved in pain perception, and potentially in affective or cognitive processes? *It would be great to have a clearer idea about the study design and specific research questions at the end of the introduction. Methods *Sample size calculation. Was this done a priori, or more post-hoc to justify? If the authors really want to include this information, I would recommend also stating the predicted effect size, and a justification why the group sizes were unequal. *Methods – line 106. “All participants were Caucasians”. Was that an inclusion criterion? *What is the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? And would you not expect differences in frequencies across patients and controls, if COMT genotype is considered a risk factor? I would like to see some discussion on this. Results *Table 2 presents the allele frequencies as well. This is not explained in Methods, nor in Results. What does allele frequency entail/reflect, and does it provide different information than the genotype? *If age differs, it should be included as a covariate in all analyses involving group comparisons. *The order of results does not coincide with the order of the statistical analysis plan. This makes it a bit harder to follow. *Line 232: “No main effect of COMT genotype on any of clinical variables was observed.” This is very relevant. Where are this data and the stats presented? And were these part of ANOVA/GLM also including main effects of Group and Interaction COMT*Group? If so, these results need to be presented together, including all relevant statistics. *Line 248: ‘the rest of the statistical contrasts’ – which ones are these? In general, I would recommend presenting all statistics, and not only the significant ones. *Line 253: What are the ‘experimental effects’? *Line 265: I think this is a typo and it should be physical symptoms as dependent variables (as introduced earlier). Although one can wonder whether self-reported pain and fatigue are ‘physical symptoms’; perhaps the authors can consider a different term. *The authors conducted quite some moderation analyses – was there any correction for multiple testing? And were variables added in a stepwise fashion in the regression model? *What exactly is presented in Table 4? It would be clearer if it included the standardized coefficients as well as relevant stats (including F/t and p values). And what was the total R2? *I wonder whether pain and fatigue were highly correlated? And whether effects of fatigue would be explained by levels of pain. *Table S1: it is unclear what the p-values refer to (which analysis). Discussion *As stated above, I do not agree that the conclusions are supported by the findings. *I would urge the authors to rephrase the first parts of discussion where they discuss ‘modulation’ of symptoms by genotype. Modulation suggests some sort of causal and direct effect. Same holds for the abstract as a matter of fact. And for instance, ‘Met/Met modulate physical symptoms, but not psychological symptoms’ – how did the authors reach this conclusion? *It is interesting that the moderation analyses are only significant for fear of (medical) pain, while this is the only variable that did not differ between individuals with fibromyalgia. I would love to see some discussion on this. Are findings perhaps not specific to this patient group? Would they find similar results in the control group? *I miss discussion of relevance and implications of these findings. There is a tiny bit at end of abstract, but this is only about psychological symptoms, and does not take the interaction with genetics into account. *Are there limitations to the use of saliva for DNA instead of blood? Abstract *Line 40: “The present data suggest that psychological factors are important in worsening the physical symptoms of fibromyalgia in genetically predisposed individuals” – besides that the data does not support this, there is also no information on progression over time. ********** 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 [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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-20-07498R1 Fear of pain moderates the relationship between fatigue perception and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in fibromyalgia patients PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferrera, 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. Thank you for addressing the majority of the comments raised by the Reviewers, however, please address comments and suggestions of Reviewer 2
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, Mahmoud Abu-Shakra, MD 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 #2: (No Response) 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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: No 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 #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 #2: “Fear of pain moderates the relationship between fatigue perception and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in fibromyalgia patients” The authors have worked hard on addressing the suggestions, questions and revising the manuscript accordingly. As a result, the manuscript greatly improved. Although I am quite satisfied with most points, but I do have some remaining concerns and questions, which I will address below. In addition, some discussion that is in the response letter would make valuable contributions to the paper. Point 16 - The main conclusion is now phrased a bit more careful, but still confusing: “Main results indicated that patients carrying the Met/Met genotype reported significantly higher levels of fatigue compared to heterozygotes carriers and higher, but not significant, scores than Val homozygotes carriers.” I think this should be: “and higher, but not significantly different from Val homozygote carriers” – or something along this line. Note that addressing my next point could actually also be relevant for this point (if it turns out that Val/Val carriers do show higher fatigue and pain compared to the other groups combined). Point 17 – I appreciate the explanation and do understand the rationale for taking Met/Met and Val/Met together (representing the Val158Met polymorphism carriers if I understand it correctly now). However, the use of two different approaches in this manuscript is still problematic if this is not explicitly explained nor addressed. If the authors want to keep both strategies (use 3 genotype groups for part A-group differences, and use 2 genotype groups for part B-moderation), it should be a) explicitly acknowledged that two different groupings are used (3 groups versus 2 groups) and why based on provided references e.g., and b) the 2 genotype groups should be formally (statistically) compared to see if results hold up when using this different grouping (i.e., to see if Val/Val carriers indeed show higher self-reported pain and fatigue than the other group) in order to justify using this alternative grouping for part B-moderation. The current strategy is problematic as the moderation analyses build on the group difference findings, but in fact, they cannot be built on this due to different analytical strategies. And the analyses will be invalid. The alternative would be that the analyses that are described in the response letter are presented in the paper as a way to justify using the different groupings. Point 18 - The authors have changed wording to ‘patients/individuals with fibromyalgia’ and avoided ‘subjects’ for the most part. Yet, I would recommend them to do another check as some old terms are remaining (e.g., line 103, 354 or 421) and also the title still uses the old style. Also, talking about the title: I am not sure ‘fatigue perception’ is an appropriate term in this case. The same with ‘catastrophism’ which is still used in the manuscript. Tables - The authors did a good job updating the result sections and corresponding tables. Point 26 – It is still unclear how the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was tested. What was the expected distribution? And also, some of this discussion in the response letter would merit inclusion in the manuscript. Point 37 – Wonderful. This would make an excellent contribution to the manuscript, so I would suggest including it. Point 41 – This is a nice discussion that also deserves to be added to the manuscript. Because no matter how you look at it, the one (and only) variable that is not elevated in the patients compared to controls does act as a moderator variable (even though analysis strategies are different). Discussion on why this would be, or at least acknowledging this, is very relevant. General point - One of my struggles was with the use of terms such as genotype, (Methionine) alleles, polymorphisms, heterozygotes carriers, Val158Met, etc of which some seem to be synonyms, but others mean slightly different things. Many things have been clarified in the responses as well as in the manuscript, for which I am grateful, but it would greatly improve the comprehensiveness of the manuscript if there was some consistency in referring to some of these jargon terms, especially in a journal like this which is read by a broad audience. Minor points *Abstract line 33 “influences of COMT genotypes and group of participants” – does the latter refer to comparing patients with controls? Please rephrase. *Page 6, lines 138-142 – This is not the place for this information, this should rather be placed at the description of the sample (around Table 2 e.g.) *Page 12, lines 265-266 – Please include the comparison Met/Met and Val/Val *Page 12, line 268 – Please avoid qualifying words such as a ‘strong’ trend. *Page 12 – It is unclear whether there were main effects of COMT gene (across groups). Reviewer #3: I enjoyed reading the paper, the authors went through an interesting path tying psychological aspects with genetics, the paper is well written abd balanced. ********** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes: Howard AMITAL [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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-20-07498R2 Fear of pain moderates the relationship between self-reported fatigue and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in patients with fibromyalgia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferrera, 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. The manuscript needs English language editing. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 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:
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, Mahmoud Abu-Shakra, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 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 #2: No 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 #2: The authors did an excellent job clarifying the manuscripts – with respect to patient-centered language, use of technical terms, the use of certain analyses (e.g., the grouping strategy), and discussion of important consideration. I support the publication of the manuscripts, although I would recommend a last language check. Especially in the revised parts, there are several grammatical errors. A few examples (not exhaustive) include: - line 75-76 “because Met allele it is responsible for [..]” - line 79-80 “due to a less release” - line 301-302 “the higher was the score [..], the higher the score of [..]” Reviewer #3: Accept as is all issues had been addressed I believe that the paper in its current form fits the scope of the journal ********** 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 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.] 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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
Fear of pain moderates the relationship between self-reported fatigue and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in patients with fibromyalgia PONE-D-20-07498R3 Dear Dr.Ferrera 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, Mahmoud Abu-Shakra, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-07498R3 Fear of pain moderates the relationship between self-reported fatigue and methionine allele of catechol-O-methyltransferase gene in patients with fibromyalgia Dear Dr. Ferrera: 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. Mahmoud Abu-Shakra Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .