Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women

Xiangqun Ju; Karen Canfell; Kirsten Howard; Gail Garvey; Joanne Hedges; Megan Smith; Lisa Jamieson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254575

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 28, 2020
18 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - John S Lambert, Editor PONE-D-20-26869 Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ju, 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 Mar 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, John S Lambert Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Data availability. Please note that PLOS journals require authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. Unfortunately, your statement that "No- some restrictions will apply", is not in accordance with PLOS data availability policy. PLOS requires that a “minimal data set” is shared, defined as the data set used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript with related metadata and methods, and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data were used in the reported study. Also, authors do not need to submit the raw data collected during an investigation if the standard in the field is to share data that have been processed. Please submit the following data: The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; The values used to build graphs; The points extracted from images for analysis.” http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-faqs-for-data-policy. If you are unable to share the data, this may result in manuscript rejection. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. We note that your paper includes detailed descriptions of individual patients/participants. 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”. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: - Abstract: in results part should be added the statistical tests results in addition to description presentation. - Methods: It should be explained why among the health utility measurement instruments, the single measurement instrument is choosen and why Standard Gamble is preferred in this study instead of other instruments. - Methods: What are the inclusion and exclusion citeria of the study participants? ****** 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 [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.0254575.r001
Revision 1
13 Feb 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract: in results part should be added the statistical tests results in addition to description presentation. Thank you. We added the statistical tests results, such as p-values and Intra-class correlation coefficients, in the Results section (line 53-58, page 4). 2. Methods: It should be explained why among the health utility measurement instruments; the single measurement instrument is chosen and why Standard Gamble is preferred in this study instead of other instruments. We added a sentence to explain why the ‘Standard Gamble’ as a single measurement instrument was chosen: 1) ‘Standard Gamble is grounded in expected utility theory, and often viewed as a gold standard to measure health utility.’ (line 113-115, page 6). 3. Methods: What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study participants? We added sentences to introduce the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study participants: 1) ‘Valuations of the six health states were collected from 513 female Indigenous Australians aged 19+ (ranging from 19 to 78) years, residing in South Australia and taking part in a wider study examining oral HPV infection and oropharyngeal cancer in Australia.’ (line 147-150, page 8). 2) ‘Participants not enrolled during the original recruitment period will not be eligible to participate in the follow-up phases.’ (line 155-156, page 8). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254575.r002
15 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Miquel Vall-llosera Camps, Editor PONE-D-20-26869R1 Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ju, 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 revise the manuscript to address all the reviewer's comments in a point-by-point response in order to ensure it is meeting the journal's publication criteria. Please note that the revised manuscript will need to undergo further review, we thus cannot at this point anticipate the outcome of the evaluation process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. 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, Miquel Vall-llosera Camps Senior 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: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know Reviewer #4: 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 Response) Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 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 Reviewer #4: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: I do not have the expertise to judge the specific tools used for this study however I note that the study has followed proper process for engaging with Indigenous populations, which speaks to its success overall. I felt it read clearly and logically and only have minor comments/corrections. Comment: Short title: Needs to include the word 'Indigenous' as that is a major focus Minor corrections: Line 105:take out one ‘in’ before Indigenous Line 112: should the word ‘status’ actually be ‘states’ (appears twice in this line) Line 113: change conduced to ‘conducted’ Line 198: separates should be ‘separate’ (singular) Line 282: “each health state” not states Line 328: add word to after similar- “similar to a study” Line 360: Indigenous Australian women (no ‘s’ necessary on Australian) Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed a significant area of research and this article will contribute significantly towards the existing literature for cervical cancer prevention program evaluation with regards to health services uptake among indigenous communities in Australia. Yet there are some points that need to be considered: 1) Minor confusion exists in the abstract (Methods) line 40-41. Difference is not obvious between health states 2 and 3. Whereas it has been clearly indicated between S2 (HPV positive with cytology normal) and S3 (Low grade cytology) in the results section. 2) The introduction section effectively gives the background of the research problem but careful proofreading would be beneficial for language errors. Similarly the discussion section has discussed the results in comparison to previous studies, yet some language errors are present. 3) In the data collection section, the study referenced for description of sample size (19) does not explain the participants. The references need to be rearranged correctly. 4) Statistical analytical techniques used are adequate, tables have been formed precisely and the main findings reported appropriately. However with my limited expertise in the field of Health Economics, I am unable to advise much. ****** 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 Reviewer #4: 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.0254575.r003
Revision 2
17 Jun 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Thanks. Reviewer #3: 1. I do not have the expertise to judge the specific tools used for this study however I note that the study has followed proper process for engaging with Indigenous populations, which speaks to its success overall. We appreciate this comment, thank you. 2. I felt it read clearly and logically and only have minor comments/corrections: 1). Short title: Needs to include the word 'Indigenous' as that is a major focus We have changed short title to: ‘Utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women’ 2) corrections: (1). Line 105: take out one ‘in’ before Indigenous We have deleted ‘in’ (Line 105, page 6). (2) Line 112: should the word ‘status’ actually be ‘states’ (appears twice in this line) Thanks. We have changed the word ‘status’ to ‘states’ (Line 113-115, page 6) (3) Line 113: change conduced to ‘conducted’ We have changed the word ‘conduced’ to ‘conducted’ (Line 113, page 6) (4) Line 198: separates should be ‘separate’ (singular) We have changed the ward ‘separates’ to ‘separate’ (Line 198, page 10) (5) Line 282: “each health state” not states We have deleted ‘s’ (Line 282, page 15) (6) Line 328: add word to after similar- “similar to a study” We have added a word ‘to’ (Line 328, page 17) (7) Line 360: Indigenous Australian women (no ‘s’ necessary on Australian) We have deleted ‘s’ (Line 361, page 18) Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed a significant area of research and this article will contribute significantly towards the existing literature for cervical cancer prevention program evaluation with regards to health services uptake among indigenous communities in Australia. Yet there are some points that need to be considered: 1) Minor confusion exists in the abstract (Methods) line 40-41. Difference is not obvious between health states 2 and 3. Whereas it has been clearly indicated between S2 (HPV positive with cytology normal) and S3 (Low grade cytology) in the results section. Thank you for pointing out this issue. Health state 2 (S2) should be ‘HPV-positive with cytology normal’. We have corrected it in Abstract and Methods sections (Line 41, page 3; and Line 140, page 7) 2) The introduction section effectively gives the background of the research problem but careful proofreading would be beneficial for language errors. Similarly the discussion section has discussed the results in comparison to previous studies, yet some language errors are present. Thanks. We have corrected language errors: (1). We deleted the word ‘in’ (Line 105, page 6) (2). We added the word ‘to’ in the sentence ‘The findings are similar a study….’ (Line 329, page 17) 3) In the data collection section, the study referenced for description of sample size (19) does not explain the participants. The references need to be rearranged correctly. We have rearranged references (Line 150, page 8) 4) Statistical analytical techniques used are adequate, tables have been formed precisely and the main findings reported appropriately. However, with my limited expertise in the field of Health Economics, I am unable to advise much. Thanks. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_R2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254575.r004
30 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Muhammad Aziz Rahman, Editor Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women PONE-D-20-26869R2 Dear Dr. Ju, 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, Associate Professor Dr Muhammad Aziz Rahman 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: minor edits: Line 77: full stop needs to be taken out after the [4,5] Line 89: the full stop should be a comma Line 101: 'and' should be 'an' Lines 272,276,280: the inverted comma before the number 12 needs to change direction Reviewer #4: (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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Vita Christie Reviewer #4: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254575.r005
Formally Accepted
14 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Aziz Rahman, Editor PONE-D-20-26869R2 Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women Dear Dr. Ju: 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 Associate Professor Dr. Muhammad Aziz Rahman Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254575.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .