A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the primary definitive therapies for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT alone

Zhan-Jie Zhang; Liang-Liang Shi; Xiao-Hua Hong; Bo-Ya Xiao; Guo-He Lin; Quentin Liu; Bi-Cheng Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265551

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 23, 2021
23 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Sethu Thakachy Subha, Editor PONE-D-21-23917 A Bayesian network analysis of the primary definitive therapies for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT alone PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 31 2022 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, Sethu Thakachy Subha, M.S 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 ensure that you have addressed all items recommended in the PRISMA checklist including identifying the study as a meta-analysis or systematic review in the title. 3. Please provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files" 7. 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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear PLOS ONE, It's an honor to review an original manuscript collaborating with your system. This manuscript was a hard work to provide a great contribution for practice changeable update and hope to apply updates in different guidelines as a better management in locoregional advanced head and neck cancer . A newly diagnosed unresectable locoregional advanced disease or unfit for surgery applied with concurrent systemic therapy followed by radiotherapy is preferred previously. This meta analysis describes and includes all evidence based different applied therapies with comparable selection criteria that established a clear outcome with recognized medical statistical methods. After this practice changeable updated work makes it easy to choose therapy and probably applicable to best care of these patients' kind. Thank you editorial board. Kind regards; Prem Raj Shrestha +977984641180 Clinical Hematology and stem cell transplant unit, Department of Medicine Civil service hospital Minbhawan, New BaneswarKathmandu Nepal. Reviewer #2: Zhang et al. present an extensive and rigorous study investigating the Bayesian network analysis involved in the primary definitive therapies for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The question of induction chemotherapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy along with concurrent chemoradiotherapy is an important question to optimize the care of these patients with curable disease. While the experiments are well thought out and expertly executed, some areas of the manuscript require clarification before publication. Title page 1. The fourth affiliation address “3 State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China……” should be “4 State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China……”. Induction section 2. Paragraph 3: ‘However, it was not until 2018 that the level of evidence for IC+CCRT in the NCCN guideline was adjusted from category 3 to category 2A’ should be replaced by “However, until 2018, the level of evidence for IC+CCRT in the NCCN guideline was adjusted from category 3 to category 2A”. 3. Paragraph 4: “applying” should be replaced by “application”. Methods section 4. Paragraph 3: “satisfied” should be replaced by “satisfy”. 5. Paragraph 4: “The primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates” could be replaced by “The primary endpoints were the rates of 5-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS)”. Results section 6. Paragraph 2: “receive” should be replaced by “received”. Discussion section 7. The study published by Lv et al. has compared lobaplatin plus 5-fluorouracil with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil in locoregionally advanced NPC patients. The authors could add the results to the “IC+CCRT vs CCRT” part. (Lancet Oncol. 2021 May;22(5):716-726.) 8. In terms of adjuvant chemotherapy, another study reported by Hui et al. has detected the function of plasma EBV DNA and explored the potential target population. The authors may consider discussing the detailed results in the “CCRT+AC vs CCRT” part. (Clin Cancer Res. 2021 May 15;27(10):2827-2836.) ****** 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: Yes:** Yang Chen [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.0265551.r001
Revision 1
2 Mar 2022 Author Response Response to the reviewers’ comments (PONE-D-21-23917) To Reviewer #1 We truly appreciate the reviewer for considering that our manuscript provides a great contribution for the clinical practice in treating locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. To Reviewer #2 We truly appreciate the reviewer for finding our work “extensive and rigorous”. We thank the reviewer’s encouraging comments and very constructive recommendations. We thus addressed the points accordingly. Title page 1. The fourth affiliation address “3 State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China……” should be “4 State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China……”. Reply: This is a very helpful comment. We are very sorry for the typing mistake. The number of the affiliation address has been corrected. The details are as followings: Revised Title page (Page 1, line 13 in the revised manuscript): 1 Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China 2 Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200438, China 3 Department of Oncology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230601, China 4 State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China Induction section 2. Paragraph 3: ‘However, it was not until 2018 that the level of evidence for IC+CCRT in the NCCN guideline was adjusted from category 3 to category 2A’ should be replaced by “However, until 2018, the level of evidence for IC+CCRT in the NCCN guideline was adjusted from category 3 to category 2A”. Reply: We thank the reviewer for the very constructive recommendation. The sentence has been adjusted according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The details are as followings: Revised Introduction (Page 4, line 16-17 in the revised manuscript): From 2015, more prospective and large randomized studies have illustrated the benefit of induction chemotherapy followed by CCRT (IC+CCRT) versus CCRT alone in the treatment of LANPC [11]. However, until 2018, the level of evidence for IC+CCRT in the NCCN guideline was adjusted from category 3 to category 2A [12]. Our recently published study also demonstrated that, compared with CCRT, IC+CCRT significantly reduced the risks of death in patients with LANPC (3-year OS hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.89; 5-year OS HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.94) [13]. To date, when LANPC patients receive IC, gemcitabine/cisplatin or docetaxel/cisplatin/5-fluorouracil could be recommended as category 1 regimens [14, 15] 3. Paragraph 4: “applying” should be replaced by “application”. Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have replaced “applying” by “application” in the revised manuscript. The details are as followings: Revised Introduction (Page 4, line 26 in the revised manuscript): According to the 2020 NCCN guideline, IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT alone are all the primary definitive therapies for LANPC. Nevertheless, the cited studies recommending the application of CCRT+AC have not been updated. Since the absence of a randomized trial directly comparing IC+CCRT to CCRT+AC and to explore the optimal therapeutic strategy for LANPC, we conducted this Bayesian network analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacies of IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT. Methods section 4. Paragraph 3: “satisfied” should be replaced by “satisfy”. Reply: This is a helpful comment. We have replaced “applying” by “application” in the revised manuscript. The details are as followings: Revised Methods (Page 5, line 19 in the revised manuscript): Selection criteria Eligible trials were requested to satisfy the following “PICO” inclusion criteria: (P) patients were newly diagnosed with LANPC; (I+C) LANPC patients randomly received at least two of the three treatment strategies, including IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT; (O) full-text articles and data of survival rates were available. Additional criteria comprised: (1) CCRT was cisplatin-based conventional concomitant chemoradiotherapy; (2) trials should be officially registered prospective phase II-IV clinical studies; (3) target therapy was prohibited during the whole care process; (4) published language was English. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. 5. Paragraph 4: “The primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates” could be replaced by “The primary endpoints were the rates of 5-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS)”. Reply: We thank the reviewer for the recommendation. The sentence has been adjusted according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The details are as followings: Revised Introduction (Page 5, line 28-29 in the revised manuscript): Outcomes The primary endpoints were the rates of 5-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS). The secondary endpoints were 5-year rates of distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Results section 6. Paragraph 2: “receive” should be replaced by “received”. Reply: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have replaced “receive” by “received” in the revised manuscript. The details are as followings: Revised Results (Page 7, line 9 in the revised manuscript): The basic characteristics of all eligible trials were listed in Table 1. A total of 3140 randomly assigned LANPC patients were involved: 1321 received IC+CCRT, 411 received CCRT+AC, and 1408 received CCRT. 2/3-dimensional radiotherapy (2/3DRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) had been applied in these trials. The regimens of induction chemotherapy comprised cisplatin+epirubicin+paclitaxel, gemcitabine+carboplatin+paclitaxel, docetaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C+epirubicin+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine+cisplatin, and cisplatin+5-fluorouracil. The adjuvant chemotherapy in both selected trials was cisplatin+5-fluorouracil. In NPC-0501 trial, we extracted data of two arms (patients received cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil IC or AC) in order to reduce the risk of bias [25]. In addition, the concurrent chemotherapies included weekly and triweekly cisplatin strategies. Discussion section 7. The study published by Lv et al. has compared lobaplatin plus 5-fluorouracil with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil in locoregionally advanced NPC patients. The authors could add the results to the “IC+CCRT vs CCRT” part. (Lancet Oncol. 2021 May;22(5):716-726.) Reply: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. The results reported by Lv et al. has been discussed in the revised manuscript. The details are as followings: Revised Discussion (Page 9, line 22-28 in the revised manuscript): IC+CCRT vs CCRT Multiple phase III clinical trials have confirmed the critical role of IC+CCRT in treating patients with LANPC. Compared with CCRT alone, IC+CCRT had better HRs in terms of OS, FFS, DMFS, and LRFS [13]. In Zhang’s study [21] published in 2019, gemcitabine plus cisplatin as IC combined with CCRT increased the 3-year OS rate to 94.6% versus 90.3% in CCRT group. IC could be well tolerated as 96.7% of the patients in IC+CCRT group completed three cycles of IC. In the newest NCCN guideline [15], gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen was recommended as a category 1 treatment for LANPC patients given IC+CCRT. In addition to this regimen, taxane (including docetaxel, paclitaxel, and nab-paclitaxel) plus cisplatin strategy is used in our hospital. A propensity-score matching analysis indicated that there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes and safety profiles between docetaxel plus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus cisplatin [26]. Therefore, we suggest taxane or gemcitabine plus cisplatin as a front IC option for LANPC patients. In addition, Lv et al. conducted a randomized phase 3 clinical trial and compared lobaplatin plus 5-fluorouracil with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil in LANPC patients. According to the report, no significant differences were observed between cisplatin-based IC and lobaplatin-based IC in terms of OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.55-1.45; p = 0.65) and progression-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.69-1.39; p = 0.92) [27]. Thus, lobaplatin-based strategies might be another promising induction chemotherapies for patients with LANPC. 27. Lv X, Cao X, Xia WX, Liu KY, Qiang MY, Guo L, et al. Induction chemotherapy with lobaplatin and fluorouracil versus cisplatin and fluorouracil followed by chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):716-26. Epub 2021/04/16. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00075-9. PubMed PMID: 33857411. 8. In terms of adjuvant chemotherapy, another study reported by Hui et al. has detected the function of plasma EBV DNA and explored the potential target population. The authors may consider discussing the detailed results in the “CCRT+AC vs CCRT” part. (Clin Cancer Res. 2021 May 15;27(10):2827-2836.) Reply: We are thankful for this comment. The results reported by Hui et al. has been added in the revised manuscript. The details are as followings: Revised Discussion (Page 10, line 14-21 in the revised manuscript): CCRT+AC vs CCRT CCRT+AC failed to show the superiority compared to IC+CCRT or CCRT alone in the Bayesian analysis. However, the survival rates in patients received CCRT+AC were numerically highest. Since most data of CCRT+AC were contributed by Chen’s studies [9, 10], that is the reason why CCRT+AC did not have higher ORs than the other two therapies. Although there were no significant differences between the groups in Chen’s clinical trial, the survival rates in CCRT+AC group were numerically higher than those in CCRT group. Kim and colleagues retrospectively detected the benefit of addition AC to CCRT and found that CCRT+AC showed higher 3-year OS (86% vs 80%, p = 0.894) and FFS (75% vs 66%, p = 0.018) rates against CCRT [28]. However, another retrospective study determined that patients with LANPC might not receive significant survival benefits from adding AC to CCRT (OS HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.37-1.57; FFS HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.69-2.28) [29]. Combined with our Bayesian network analysis, to date, there is still a lack of evidence to confirm the superiority of CCRT+AC compared to CCRT. In 2021, Hui et al. detected the prediction function of plasma Epstein barr virus (EBV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and found that the patients with detectable post-radiotherapy plasma EBV DNA who experienced subsequent plasma EBV DNA clearance might be the potential target population of AC [30]. In further explorations, the ongoing phase II and III study, NRG-HN001, attempt to risk-stratify AC using post-radiotherapy plasma biomarker EBV DNA levels. The future results of NRG-HN001 might help us determine the suitable population and whether omitting AC will result in non-inferior survivals compared to patients treated with CCRT+AC. 30. Hui EP, Ma BBY, Lam WKJ, Chan KCA, Mo F, Ai QH, et al. Dynamic Changes of Post-Radiotherapy Plasma Epstein-Barr Virus DNA in a Randomized Trial of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Observation in Nasopharyngeal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(10):2827-36. Epub 2021/03/12. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3519. PubMed PMID: 33692028. To Editor 1. The title has been adjusted to meet the publication criteria. The details are as followings: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the primary definitive therapies for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT alone Zhan-Jie Zhang1, Liang-Liang Shi1, Xiao-Hua Hong1, Bo-Ya Xiao2, Guo-He Lin3, Quentin Liu4, Bi-Cheng Wang1,ξ 1 Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China 2 Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200438, China 3 Department of Oncology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230601, China 4 State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265551.r002
4 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Sethu Thakachy Subha, Editor A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the primary definitive therapies for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT alone PONE-D-21-23917R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Sethu Thakachy Subha, M.S Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265551.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Sethu Thakachy Subha, Editor PONE-D-21-23917R1 A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the primary definitive therapies for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, and CCRT alone Dear Dr. Wang: 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. Sethu Thakachy Subha Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265551.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .