Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 29, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-10233 Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Panpipat, 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 Jun 24 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. 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, C. Anandharamakrishnan 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. We understand that you purchased ingredients from local markets for this study. In your Methods section, please provide additional regarding the source of this material. Please provide the geographic coordinates and names of the purchase locations (e.g., stores, markets), if available, as well as any further details about the purchased items (e.g., lot number, source origin, description of appearance) to ensure reproducibility of the analyses. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: "This research was financially supported by Research and Researchers for Industries (RRI) program and Shaw Processing Food Co. Ltd. [Grant No. MSD61I0053] and the new strategic research project (P2P), Walailak University, Thailand. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Shaw Processing Food Co. Ltd. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this 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 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 your amended Competing Interests Statement within 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Partly Reviewer #8: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: No Reviewer #8: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: No Reviewer #8: 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: 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: The manuscript entitled Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying finds to be interesting. Further some major revision is required before final acceptance. General Comments: 1. In this work, author used hybrid MI drying method for drying of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder (TCP). But throughout the manuscript only microwave power level varies and nothing is mentioned about Infra-red drying. In Fig 1 also there is no provision of Infra-red heating, then how this method become hybrid drying. 2. There is no comparison of energy consumption of HA and MI in the manuscript. 3. The applied Drying time in MI method is higher range (above 40 min). Normally drying in microwave upto 10 min maximum. Specific Comments: 1. In Introduction give more recent references related with MI drying method. 2. Line no. 120-121, On what basis final moisture content 12% and water activity 0.6 was chosen. Whether its safe moisture content of storage of TCP. If yes, then give reference for it. 3. What is the sample size dry in both the method? 4. In this research work, TCP dried at three different temperatures 60, 70 and 800C. On what basis this range was selected. Please mentioned in the manuscript. 5. Line 152-153; please specify why TBRS is important to study in this research work. 6. Line 162-163, why author want to use FTIR in this study. Please mention? On what basis the FTIR range was selected? 7. Line 170-171, How Browning Intensity influence the product quality. Please specify Reviewer #2: The paper ”Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying” aimed to comparatively investigate the effect of hot air drying (HA) and hybrid microwave-infrared drying (MI) on physico-chemical characteristics of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder (TCP). The subject is of great interest for the industrials willing to reinterpret the traditional technology into convenient innovative alternatives. There are few aspects that need attention from the authors. Indicate how many replicates were taken in this study. When a product is designed for further industrial scale production, the readers are willing to see the sensory analysis results. Did you perform sensory data or are you able to perform it and include the results in this manuscript? For better point the advantage of MI treatment, authors should perform also some stability tests and specify the shelf life of the obtained powders. Is it possible to perform also the microbiological analysis? At least the common ones ? You can also insert a discussion related to the influence of fat content to product stability. Please argument the necessity of antioxidant activity (AA) and correlate the your AA results to total phenolic content, not just simply say they correlate based on literature analysis, because it is not always true. So please check this with your results. Why did authors decide not to include also the individual phenolic compound analysis? The discussion on FTIR results is poor. Please improve this part otherwise is not useful for the readers. Reviewer #3: The manuscript deals with physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying. The English language must be revised. Please separate values from units, e.g. “60 ºC” not “60ºC”. Please number all sections. Abstract This section is vague. Please present your main results. Introduction The topics must be better linked. Materials and methods Line 107- “Thereafter, all ingredients with the specified proportion were mixed and coarsely ground for 10 min using a grinder (MK 5087M Panasonic Food Processor, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia) to obtain fresh curry paste.”??amounts used of each ingredient?? Line 109- “The fresh curry paste was then pasteurized at 90ºC for 10 min.”??how was the sample pasteurized?amount used?? Line 114- “Two drying techniques including HA and MI were used to prepare Tai-Pla curry powder. The fresh samples were uniformly spread in the tray with the thickness of 0.5 cm and subjected to dry using a traditional HA drier (tray drier) or an MI drier. The MI drier used in this study was developed by the Center of Excellence in Plasma Science and Electromagnetic Waves, Walailak University (Fig. 1). The MI output powers were adjusted to 740, 780, and 810 W in order to meet the drying temperature of 60ºC, 70ºC, and 80ºC as done by a traditional HA drier.”??used conditions??tray dryer air speed?? Line 115- “The fresh samples were uniformly spread in the tray with the thickness of 0.5 cm and subjected to dry using a traditional HA drier (tray drier) or an MI drier.”??amount used?? Line 123- “The obtained TCP was packed in an aluminum foil laminated bag to prevent moisture adsorption and kept in an auto desiccator at room temperature for 24 h.”??packaging dimensions?? Line 167- “Colorimetric values of the samples were measured using a Hunterlab colorimeter (Hunter Assoc. Laboratory; VA, USA). The L*, a*, and b* values were recorded.”???illuminant used??ºobserver??calibration?? Line 184- “Wettability”??or solubility in water?? Results and discussion This section has lack of depth and must be improved. Line 251- “From the results, TCP contributed not only for taste and flavor enhancers, but also played a part in an extra-source of nutrients.”?? Aroma???flavor??measured?? Particle size?? Figure 1- Please define each component. Figure 4- Please add wavenumber in each peak. Conclusion Line 451- “Results suggested that TCP prepared by MI method showed the superior physico-chemical characteristics to the traditional HA.”???superior??in which results?? References 37 references have more than 5 years. Please update your list of references. Reviewer #4: In the present study titled “Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying” is presented in detailed a well elaborated research which evaluated the properties of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder (TCP) dryed on different approaches: hot air drying (HA) and hybrid microwave-infrared drying (MI). The properties of both fresh and dried powders were evaluated by proximate composition, aw, total phenolic content, DPPH radical scavenging activity, TBARS, FT-IR spectroscopy and physical characteristics (colour, browning intensity, bulk density, wetability). The research led to the identification of the best drying procedure of the fresh pasta with the desired properties, namely the hybrid microwave-infrared drying (MI). In general the data are strong, and convincingly shows that the hybrid microwave-infrared drying (MI) approach could be used as a drying procedure to obtain good quality food products. The manuscript is well written, concise and the appropriate analyses are performed. Overall, this is a well performed study that I consider that is important and represent a new strategy to conveniently obtain Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder (TCP) with good quality characteristics. The authors need to address the below comments to strengthen the quality of the manuscript: 1. Please insert the characterization methods used in the present study in the Abstract (e.g. FT-IR, DPPH assay). 2. Please replace the phrases from line 37 and 455: „Therefore, MI was a promising drying 3. technique to reduce the drying time and improve the overall quality of TCP.” By „Therefore, MI is a promising drying technique to reduce the drying time and improve the overall quality of TCP.” 4. In the preparation method of the pasta (in Materials and methods) please include the mass percentage of the main ingredients used to obtain the product. Reviewer #5: In this manuscript, the authors compared the effect of hot air drying (HA) and hybrid microwave-infrared drying (MI) on physico-chemical characteristics of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder (TCP). The data in this article is not solid and well analyzed. Besides, the article doesn't present the application superiority of MI thoroughly, in other words doesn't fit with the average originality found of PLOS ONE. I recommend to not publish the article. Major comments The data succeed to show the different effect of HA and MI, but the experiments are too superficial, as well the test of antioxidant activities. According to the introduction, the application of TCP mainly gives the Thai food a special flavor and aroma, which should be concerned in this article because the HA and MI processing would change the flavor of TCP. In the overall the text is well written but is superficial and is out of the journal standards. Detailed comments 1. The authors developed a hybrid microwave-infrared drier but the schematic diagram (Fig. 1) didn’t show how the hybrid microwave-infrared drier works. 2. SEM is recommended to show the influence of these physical processes on tissues of TCP during drying. 3. Line 36: better change “between … to …” to “from … to …”. 4. Line 61: “a” should be “its” or deleted. 5. Line 76-77: Please check this sentence and revise. 6. Line 163: FTIR spectra of fresh samples can’t be found in Figure 4. 7. Line 251-252: Please check this sentence and revise. 8. Line 271: Please check this sentence and revise. 9. Line 380-381: Please check this sentence and revise. 10. Line 411-412: Please check this sentence and revise. 11. Line 421: “P<0.05” is wrong. 12. Please replace “governed” with another word in line 30, line 307, and line 441. 13. Line 51: “cuisin” should be “cuisine”. 14. Please add a comma before the second subject in line 215-217, line 217-218, and line 402-403. 15. Please mark “a, b, c” in the Figure 3 according to “Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b, Fig. 3c” in line 302-313. Reviewer #6: In this manuscript, Choopan et al. compared the hot air (HA) and hybrid microwave-infrared (MI) drying ways on the Physico-chemical characteristics of TCP. They have demonstrated that MI drying with a condition of 810 W for 40 min effectively reduced the drying time by five-fold. They also showed that MI-dried TCP had the lowest browning index, the highest lightness, higher phenolic content, and lower TBARS, indicating improved overall quality. The manuscript has convincing data to support their conclusion. The concern I have is whether MI drying affects the flavor of TCP. Is it possible to evaluate the flavor? Reviewer #7: The paper presents an application of Physico-chemical aspects for Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but this paper needs improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows: 1. The sample source and size are both important for this paper, and please provide more details about the sample information in the section Tai-Pla curry paste preparation. 2. Instrument model and manufacturer used for the drying process are not provided in the section Drying experiment. Please provide more details about these information. 3. In the sections “Total phenolic content (TPC) and DPPH radical scavenging activity”, “Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)”, and “Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy”, only 20 g (i.e., 10g for Total phenolic content (TPC) and DPPH radical scavenging activity and 10 g for Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)) is not enough for us to consider the robustness of your chemical measurements. You must provide more samples to ensure it. 4. Please provide more details in the section Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and Color. 5. In the section “Statistical analysis”, please provide the sample size and the sample category for the data analysis. 6. The increase of TPC from the fresh sample to the drying sample is not reasonable in the Figure 3. Please show us more reason or information about it . Reviewer #8: The manuscript entitled “Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying” investigated the effect of hot air drying (HA) and hybrid microwave-infrared drying (MI) on physico-chemical characteristics of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder (TCP). The present manuscript requires major revision before considering for the acceptance. 1. Add references in the line 54-64 2. Mention the quantity of each ingredients taken for the preparation of Tai-Pla curry paste (Line 102-104) 3. The authors mentioned that the fresh curry paste was pasteurized at 90oC for 10 min. There is any standard pre-optimized protocol/references available? 4. In case of MI how output power level calculation was done? And what basis the power level of 740, 780, and 810 W was chosen? 5. Elaborate the standard methodology (AOAC) followed to determine moisture, protein, fat, ash, and carbohydrate 6. In line 168, add the description for color value L*, a* and b* 7. In line 207 author have mentioned drying time 70oC and 80 oC had the similar drying time of 120 min. Why so? If there is difference in 10 oC could achieved at 120 min? 8. What would be the final temperature achieved at 740W/70 min, 780W/45 min and 810W/40 min? 9. Rewrite the whole section in results part -Free radical scavenging activity, TBARS- precisely with the obtained values and compare with other studies 10. Explain the effect of drying on functional group in FTIR-Rewrite the paragraph 11. Revise the conclusion part as per the obtained results 12. Need to add statistical design or experimental design 13. Fig 1. label the each parts 14. Fig 4 & 5 labelling is inappropriate ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: No Reviewer #7: No Reviewer #8: Yes: VENKATACHALAPATHY N [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 |
|
Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying PONE-D-21-10233R1 Dear Dr. Panpipat, 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, C. Anandharamakrishnan Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #8: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: 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 #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: The authors addressed all the comments to strengthen the quality of the manuscript: the manuscript is now well written and well technically sound. The data support the discussions and the conclusions, newer references have been added. Reviewer #6: In the revised manuscript, the authors addressed all my questions. I have no more concerns and suggest accepting the paper for publication. Reviewer #7: (No Response) Reviewer #8: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #6: No Reviewer #7: No Reviewer #8: Yes: VENKATACHALAPATHY NATARAJAN |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-10233R1 Physico-chemical aspects of Thai fermented fish viscera, Tai-Pla, curry powder processed by hot air drying and hybrid microwave-infrared drying Dear Dr. Panpipat: 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. C. Anandharamakrishnan 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 .