The role of online social networks in improving health literacy and medication adherence among people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran: Development of a conceptual model

Azam Bazrafshani; Sirous Panahi; Hamid Sharifi; Effat Merghati-Khoei

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261304

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 9, 2021
2 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Syed Imran Ahmed, Editor PONE-D-21-04415 The role of online social networks in improving health literacy and medication adherence among people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran: A mixed-method study PLOS ONE Dear Dr Sirous Panahi, 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 Jul 17 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, Syed Imran Ahmed, MClinPharm, PhD, MRSPH 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. Please include additional information regarding the questionnaire and interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. Specifically, please include a copy of your surveys/interview guides, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for your submission for consideration to be be published. Due to COVID19 delays it was dfificult to get suitable reviewers to get review reports in time, which has caused delays in getting back to you with any decision. Thank you for your patience. The reviewer has highlighted comments that are needed to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered. The main comments are on methodlody and conceptual framework of analysis, which i believe need to be very robust as commented by the reviewer. I invite you to kindly take note of all the comments and revised manuscript accoridngly. While doing this revision, kindly ensure that authors instructions are carefully adhered. Thank you. [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: Please see attached. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-04415-The role of online social networks.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261304.r001
Revision 1
25 Jun 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers 07 May 2021 Dear Editor, Re: PONE-D-21-04415: The role of online social networks in improving health literacy and medication adherence among people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran: Development of a conceptual model Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript for publication in the Journal of PLOS ONE. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes. Reviewer comments to the authors General • The manuscript is generally well-written. However, it contains a few grammatical errors and need for syntax improvement. The paper will benefit from careful proof-reading before it will be considered for publication in the journal. Thank you! We have revised the grammar and writing of the manuscript again to improve the language and the quality of writing. • My major concern with the study is that it is unclear if the Delphi and the nominal group technique were robust enough to yield a valid conceptual model. More information may be required. Thank you. We agree with the reviewer. Further information about the technical aspects of the Delphi study and the nominal group technique were added to the method’s section. • Another concern is that there is no sufficient information on the items that were used in the questionnaire utilized in the Delphi phase. Thank you. We agree with the reviewer. Further information about designing the questionnaire and survey items used in the Delphi study were added to the method’s section. • As a normal scientific writing convention, abbreviations should always be defined in full-term at first use and the abbreviation used thereafter. We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, throughout the manuscript, we have revised the abbreviations and corrected the typos. Title • I am not sure, but I doubt if the study can be described as a “mixed-methods”. In the secondary title, can it be described as “a multi-methods study” or simply “development of a conceptual model”? The title was edited as you pointed out. Abstract • The abstract is well-written. • Abbreviations such as HIV should be defined in full-term at first use. We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, throughout the manuscript, we have revised the abbreviations and corrected the typos • While the study is described as three phases, I do not seem to see the third phase in the abstract. I understand the qualitative part as one phase and Delphi as another phase. What is the third phase? We have considered the nominal group technique as the third phase of the study. • Line 32: Change “24 sub-themes were emerged” to “24 sub-themes emerged”. Modifications were made as you pointed out. Introduction • The Introduction is fairly well-written, and has provided some insight about what is known in the literature and the gaps, but it can be better. Some explanations were added to the introduction section as you pointed out. • However, some redundancies and repetitions regarding the use and value of Internet and OSN among PLWHA. This can be better by minimizing the redundancies. Modifications were made as you pointed out. • As a normal scientific writing convention, abbreviations should always be defined in full-term at first use and the abbreviation used thereafter. Examples HIV/AIDS, ART, PLWHA etc. We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, throughout the manuscript, we have revised the abbreviations and corrected the typos • Line 58-61: Any references to support the statements in line 58 - 61? New references were added to the manuscript. • Line 62: The open bracket before OSN should be closed. Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Line 74: A cross-sectional” instead of “Across”. Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Line 81: “patient-cantered” should be “patient-centered” Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Aim of the study: The aim in the Introduction is different from the one in the Abstract. The researchers need to be consistent. Modifications were made as you pointed out. Methods • Line 98-99: Summarize the three sequential phases and justify the choice of this approach. It also must be well clear what you aim to achieve in phase 2 and phase 3 and how they are connected. Some explanations were added to the method section as you pointed out. • Line 122: You said interviews duration ranged between 14 - 60 minutes and the longest lasted for 90 minutes. This is a contradiction. Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Line 123: Change to “… were conducted”. Modifications were made as you pointed out. Phase 2 and Phase 3: The process for the development of conceptual model is rather superficial and not detailed enough. More information and robust process are needed. Some explanations about the techniqual aspects of the Delphi study and development of the conceptual model were added as you pointed out. • Phase 2 (Delphi study): It is unclear how many rounds of Delphi were conducted. • Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Phase 3 (Nominal group technique): It is unclear how the NGT differs from the Delphi in terms of methodology. I am also not clear how many members were included in total. If n=5, is this considered adequate? • Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Line 141: Was online social networks not abbreviated as OSN before? • Modifications were made as you pointed out. • Line 148 and throughout the paper: British vs. US English. • Modifications were made as you pointed out. Results • Generally well-written with clear tables to support the textual descriptions. Thank you! • Line 171 – 183: Demographic information should have also been presented in a table. A new table was inserted to the manuscript to summarize the demographic data of respondents. • Line 182: Thirteen of 29 does not represent 51%. • Modifications were made as you pointed out • Line 192: Change “retroviral” to “anti-retroviral” • Modifications were made as you pointed out • Line 192: Are you sure there are four sub-themes? I counted 5 in Table 1. • Modifications were made as you pointed out • Line 411: In the Delphi methods, the level of agreement was 75%. Here you have changed to 70%. Be consistent. Modifications were made as you pointed out Discussion • The Discussion needs to be more critical and supported by relevant literature and not merely a summary of the results. • The discussions are redundant in places. These must focus on the major findings and citing relevant literature. Several important previous studies not cited. Thank you! We have modified the discussion and classified the reference to a new format as you pointed out. Conclusion • Can be better written to reflect the study objectives and finding. In addition, how would the conceptual model help in designing interventions to improve medication literacy and medication adherence through OSN? Conclusion was revised and implications of the proposed model were added. References • I advise that the authors should strictly adhere to the journal’s referencing style (please see authors instructions). • Some references are incomplete and inaccurate. • In addition, some journals names are not according to the journal’s style. Thank you! All journal names were checked by the NLM journal database and the abbreviations were added. Reference styles were again checked by the Vancouver style. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261304.r002
16 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Syed Imran Ahmed, Editor PONE-D-21-04415R1The role of online social networks in improving health literacy and medication adherence among people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran: Development of a conceptual modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Panahi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ==============================Thank you for your revised submission. The reviewers are generally pleased with the efforts, however, recommended some changes including language editing. Please ensure the mansucript proof reading before revised submission for quality word processing. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 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: https://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, Syed Imran Ahmed, MClinPharm, PhD, MRSPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #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: N/A Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No 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: Thank you for addressing most of my previous comments. I have just 2 minor comments for your consideration: 1. I still believe the paper need language editing. There are still minor grammatical errors, needs for syntax improvement, and other issues (e.g. starting a sentence with small letters, using symbols such as & in sentences etc). 2. I believe Table 2 containing the qualitative results can be better formatted. For example, I am not sure if each quote example aligns well with the relevant sub-theme. Reviewer #2: The language of the manuscript should be cross-checked and modified, accordingly. It requires improvement. If it could be copy edited by a professional copy-editor, it would be nice. ****** 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 #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.0261304.r003
Revision 2
12 Oct 2021 Author Response Dear reviewers, Thank you so much for all your insightful comments. Our manuscript’s language has been recently evaluated by an expert English Language researcher and we have made some modifications to improve the quality of the grammar and writing style of the manuscript. We have also checked the reference style. In addition, we have tried to improve the format of the qualitative results in Table 2. The co-authors have checked the open codes and sub-themes carefully. But they have decided not to change the current format. We really appreciate your dedication and commitment to improve the quality of this manuscript. Hope these modifications comply with your remarks. Sincerely yours, Sirous Panahi Corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261304.r004
1 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Syed Imran Ahmed, Editor The role of online social networks in improving health literacy and medication adherence among people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran: Development of a conceptual model PONE-D-21-04415R2 Dear Dr. Sirous Panahi, 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, Syed Imran Ahmed, MClinPharm, PhD, MRSPH 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 have reviewed this revised version of this manuscript. The authors have addressed all my concerns. Thank you. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261304.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Syed Imran Ahmed, Editor PONE-D-21-04415R2 The role of online social networks in improving health literacy and medication adherence among people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran: Development of a conceptual model Dear Dr. Panahi: 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. Syed Imran Ahmed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261304.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 .