Modelling smallholder farmers’ preferences for soil fertility management technologies in Benin: A stated preference approach

Segla Roch Cedrique Zossou; Patrice Ygue Adegbola; Brice Tiburce Oussou; Gustave Dagbenonbakin; Roch Mongbo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253412

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 9, 2021
3 May 2021 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-21-07803 Modelling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Segla Roch Cedrique Zossou, 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 May 7, 2021. 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: No comment 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. 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. Please include additional information regarding the survey or interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire or interview guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of aparticipant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. [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: Yes ******** 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: 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: I found this study informative, which presents a new idea entitled, " Modelling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach." This article states that the decline of soil fertility is a major constraint which results in lower levels of crop productivity, and agricultural development and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. This study analyses the most interesting technological profiles to offer to each category of producer in Benin agricultural development hubs (ADHs) using the stated preference method, more precisely, the improved choice experiment method. The investigation focused on 1047 sampled plots from 962 randomly selected producers in villages of the Smallholder Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program in Sub-Saharan Africa of the ADHs. Abstract and Introduction improvement: I am glad to assess this informative study. In my opinion, I have some guidelines for the authors to enhance the study quality before endorsing it for publication. As the Abstract is the main door or "FACE" of the manuscript, it should briefly present high-quality English with new information. I am recommending the authors of this study to expand Abstract, as it is too short. The Abstract should be around 250 words. I have suggested some studies to check the abstracts and improve yours and cite them in the introduction and build your study objectives like these studies. Hussain, T., Abbas, J., Wei, Z., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effect of Sustainable Urban Planning and Slum Disamenity on The Value of Neighboring Residential Property: Application of The Hedonic Pricing Model in Rent Price Appraisal. Sustainability, 11(4). doi:10.3390/su11041144 Abbas, J., Raza, S., Nurunnabi, M., Minai, M. S., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Business Networks on Firms’ Performance Through a Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability, 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113006 Hussain, T., Abbas, J., Wei, Z., Ahmad, S., Xuehao, B., & Gaoli, Z. (2021). Impact of Urban Village Disamenity on Neighboring Residential Properties: Empirical Evidence from Nanjing through Hedonic Pricing Model Appraisal. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(1), 04020055. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000645 Literature section It presents a good summary of the literature. I suggest authors add the literature as recommended below to improve the manuscript. Overall, the authors have creatively linked variables. It reflects an innovative model of the study. I am pleased to read this article. However, I have some suggestions for the authors to enhance the quality of the literature section. The authors can add few lines about technological innovations and environmental responsibility practices. Please see the suggested studies and cite them to enhance the literature section. Abbas, J., Zhang, Q., Hussain, I., Akram, S., Afaq, A., & Shad, M. A. (2020). Sustainable Innovation in Small Medium Enterprises: The Impact of Knowledge Management on Organizational Innovation through a Mediation Analysis by Using SEM Approach. Sustainability, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062407 Methods and Results The results section of the paper presents a good view of the study. This work presents a notable investigation on a selected topic. I suggest including some graphical presentations to improve the quality of this study. Please see the proposed studies and see the graphical representation. Improve your work like these studies and cite them in this section. Abbasi, K. R., Abbas, J., & Tufail, M. (2021). Revisiting electricity consumption, price, and real GDP: A modified sectoral level analysis from Pakistan. Energy Policy, 149, 112087. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112087 Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Social Media on Learning Behavior for Sustainable Education: Evidence of Students from Selected Universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061683 Abbasi, K. R., Hussain, K., Abbas, J., Adedoyin, F. F., Shaikh, P. A., Yousaf, H., & Muhammad, F. (2021). Analyzing the role of industrial sector's electricity consumption, prices, and GDP: A modified empirical evidence from Pakistan [J]. AIMS Energy, 9(1), 29-49. doi:10.3934/energy.2021003 Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Ali, H., Ali Raza, M., Ali, G., Aman, J., . . . Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Business Firms. Sustainability, 11(12), 3434. Conclusion I suggest you make a separate heading of the conclusion and do not mix it with implications. Policy Recommendations I again recommend you to make a separate heading of the Policy Recommendations. The conclusion section is acceptable. Overall, this presents a good piece of research work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and revise this article accordingly. I suggest the authors check English quality and fix some weak sentences. If you have already taken English editing service, ask them to recheck the quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested. Reviewer #2: I am glad to review and assess this interesting article, entitled, Modeling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach. This study analyses the most interesting technological profiles to offer to each category of producer in Benin agricultural development hubs (ADHs) using the stated preference method, more precisely, the improved choice experiment method. The organization of this article is good and satisfactory. The Introduction section and methodology portions are adequate. I suggest the authors improve the Materials and Methods section by adding some latest articles' citations to enhance the work quality and also concise this part. Also, Improve the Conclusion part as well. Overall, the manuscript is a good piece of work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and add the latest literature to support the study, as suggested. The English level is good and smooth, e.g., the language standard, specifically the grammar, of sufficient quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I accept this manuscript after minor revision, as I have recommended. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253412.r001
Revision 1
2 Jun 2021 Author Response Reply to reviewers’ comments on PONE-D-21-07803R1 “Modelling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach.” Response to academic editor Reply to specific comments: 1. We note the following text is only included in the Tracked Changes document: « The study was carried out on private land. We confirm that, the owner of the land gave permission to conduct the study on this site, and no specific permissions were required for these locations/activities. The agents of the research centers, the town hall, the village chiefs, and the resource persons facilitated the interviews with the producers in the villages." Please confirm and include the above permissions text in the Methods section of your manuscript. - Response 1: The correction has been made as suggested. We confirm and include the following text concerning the permissions text in the Methods section of the manuscript. " The study was carried out on private land. We confirm that, the owner of the land gave permission to conduct the study on this site, and no specific permissions were required for these locations/activities. The agents of the research centers, the town hall, the village chiefs, and the resource persons facilitated the interviews with the producers in the villages." \f Reply to reviewer 1: First, we want to thank te reviewer for the time spent going through this paper for comments. We are convinced that these comments have substantially improved the paper. Abstract and Introduction improvement: I am glad to assess this informative study. In my opinion, I have some guidelines for the authors to enhance the study quality before endorsing it for publication. As the Abstract is the main door or "FACE" of the manuscript, it should briefly present high-quality English with new information. I am recommending the authors of this study to expand Abstract, as it is too short. The Abstract should be around 250 words. I have suggested some studies to check the abstracts and improve yours and cite them in the introduction and build your study objectives like these studies. Hussain, T., Abbas, J., Wei, Z., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effect of Sustainable Urban Planning and Slum Disamenity on The Value of Neighboring Residential Property: Application of The Hedonic Pricing Model in Rent Price Appraisal. Sustainability, 11(4). doi:10.3390/su11041144 Abbas, J., Raza, S., Nurunnabi, M., Minai, M. S., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Business Networks on Firms’ Performance Through a Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability, 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113006 Hussain, T., Abbas, J., Wei, Z., Ahmad, S., Xuehao, B., & Gaoli, Z. (2021). Impact of Urban Village Disamenity on Neighboring Residential Properties: Empirical Evidence from Nanjing through Hedonic Pricing Model Appraisal. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(1), 04020055. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000645 - Response : We thank the reviewer for this proposal. We expand the Abstract as suggested. Some studies suggested by the reviewer have been exploited and cited in order to improve the abstract and the introduction and build our study objectives. Literature section It presents a good summary of the literature. I suggest authors add the literature as recommended below to improve the manuscript. Overall, the authors have creatively linked variables. It reflects an innovative model of the study. I am pleased to read this article. However, I have some suggestions for the authors to enhance the quality of the literature section. The authors can add few lines about technological innovations and environmental responsibility practices. Please see the suggested studies and cite them to enhance the literature section. Abbas, J., Zhang, Q., Hussain, I., Akram, S., Afaq, A., & Shad, M. A. (2020). Sustainable Innovation in Small Medium Enterprises: The Impact of Knowledge Management on Organizational Innovation through a Mediation Analysis by Using SEM Approach. Sustainability, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062407 - Response : The correction has been made as suggested by the reviewer. We have added the literature as recommended The results section of the paper presents a good view of the study. This work presents a notable investigation on a selected topic. I suggest including some graphical presentations to improve the quality of this study. Please see the proposed studies and see the graphical representation. Improve your work like these studies and cite them in this section. Abbasi, K. R., Abbas, J., & Tufail, M. (2021). Revisiting electricity consumption, price, and real GDP: A modified sectoral level analysis from Pakistan. Energy Policy, 149, 112087. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112087 Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Social Media on Learning Behavior for Sustainable Education: Evidence of Students from Selected Universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061683 Abbasi, K. R., Hussain, K., Abbas, J., Adedoyin, F. F., Shaikh, P. A., Yousaf, H., & Muhammad, F. (2021). Analyzing the role of industrial sector's electricity consumption, prices, and GDP: A modified empirical evidence from Pakistan [J]. AIMS Energy, 9(1), 29-49. doi:10.3934/energy.2021003 Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Ali, H., Ali Raza, M., Ali, G., Aman, J., . . . Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Business Firms. Sustainability, 11(12), 3434. - Response : The observation are very relevant and has been taken into account as suggested by the reviewer. Some graphical presentations are now added to improve the quality of this study. Some studies suggested by the reviewer have been exploited and cited in the manuscript Conclusion I suggest you make a separate heading of the conclusion and do not mix it with implications. - Response : The correction has been made as suggested by the reviewer. Policy Recommendations I again recommend you to make a separate heading of the Policy Recommendations. The conclusion section is acceptable. Overall, this presents a good piece of research work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and revise this article accordingly. I suggest the authors check English quality and fix some weak sentences. If you have already taken English editing service, ask them to recheck the quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested. - Response : The correction is done as suggested by the reviewer. We have made a separate heading of the Policy Recommendations. We have checked English quality and fix some weak sentences with English editing service \f Response to Reviewer #2 Comments I am glad to review and assess this interesting article, entitled, Modeling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach. This study analyses the most interesting technological profiles to offer to each category of producer in Benin agricultural development hubs (ADHs) using the stated preference method, more precisely, the improved choice experiment method. The organization of this article is good and satisfactory. The Introduction section and methodology portions are adequate. I suggest the authors improve the Materials and Methods section by adding some latest articles' citations to enhance the work quality and also concise this part. Also, Improve the Conclusion part as well. Overall, the manuscript is a good piece of work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and add the latest literature to support the study, as suggested. The English level is good and smooth, e.g., the language standard, specifically the grammar, of sufficient quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I accept this manuscript after minor revision, as I have recommended. Reply to general comments: - First, we express our gratitude to the reviewer for devoting his time to this paper for the comments and for providing many relevant articles to the topic addressed in this paper. We are convinced that these comments and the review of suggested articles have substantially improved the paper. The correction has been made as suggested. We have improved the Materials and Methods, and Conclusion section, by adding some latest articles' citations to enhance the work quality and also concise this part. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253412.r002
7 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor Modelling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach PONE-D-21-07803R1 Dear Dr. Segla Roch Cedrique Zossou, 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, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D 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 #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: I am satisfied to evaluate the revised manuscript. I have found the revised version of this study effective and satisfactory. The authors have made a good attempt and answered all my points to improve the quality of this study. I feel happy to avail myself of the opportunity to evaluate this informative study. In my evaluation, this version of the article entitled, "Modelling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Fertility Management Technologies in Benin: A Stated Preference Approach" has reach merit for publication. I believe that the authors have made an excellent revision to reach scientific merit for the publication of this study. The article is well structured, and the methodology is appropriate, well applied, and discussed. I accept and endorse this revised article in the current format, as the authors have made a satisfactory revision to achieve scientific merit for publication. Have a smooth publication procedure. Good Luck! Reviewer #2: The authors have successfully addressed all my concerns in the revised manuscript. Hence I recommend the acceptance of this paper. ****** 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:** J. Abbas Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253412.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Jun 2021 Acceptance Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-21-07803R1 Modelling smallholder farmers' preferences for soil fertility management technologies in Benin: A stated preference approach Dear Dr. Zossou: 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. Prof. Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253412.r004

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 .