Structural equation model of psychological constructs of transtheoretical model, motives for physical activity, and amount of physical activity among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Malaysia

Aizuddin Hidrus; Yee Cheng Kueh; Bachok Norsa’adah; YoungHo Kim; Yu-Kai Chang; Garry Kuan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266104

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 18, 2021
13 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Hoh Boon-Peng, Editor PONE-D-21-23408Structural Equation Model of Psychological Constructs of Transtheoretical Model, Motives for Physical Activity, and Physical Activity Amount in People with Type 2 Diabetes MellitusPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kueh, 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 Oct 21 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, Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD 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 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: Minor revision. Kindly refer to the attachment for suggestion. Thanks. Reviewer #2: Thank you dear authors for the good work. The research problem is relevant, and testing of such models is so important for practitioners to consider improvements in their intervention. Based on my review i put the following specific comments. Title:Include the place of study(Malaysia) 1. Abstract: the study design used was Mixed method, so the term cross sectional and purpose sampling are not important. sample size and sampling method for both quantitative and qualitative design need to be presented in the methods section. 2. Introduction: Psychologically, the transtheoretical model (TTM) is a questionnaire...(TTM is a behavior change model not a questionnaire). The research problem/gaps is should be described more; i.e Physical Activity in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Malaysia or the world. what is indirect relationship and why it is needed? 3. Materials and Methods; the study design section needs clarity. sampling method and participant section or sampling procedure are not clear.describe each study designs used, how participants were chosen, how many etc. take the statement "All participants were initially required to complete consent forms before the study began as an indication that they volunteered and were willing to participate in this study" to ethical consideration section. the Measures and Materials is nice.from whom you collect the data? patient them selves or their medical card. some relevant variables such as religion are missed. if you used cards, it secondary data and you should clearly mention that you used secondary data and its limitations. 4. Results: the last two variables in table one are not demographic characteristics. Rather, they are clinical. the title of tables need to be written properly. what where and when for each table. the final model( the relationship between the pathways and the PA) should be interpreted in detail. This is the core of your research and same is true in discussion section. You use only a cross sectional quantitative study. at the beginning it seems you used a mixed method. In general it is a good work. there are some spelling errors like the word University in many sections. with careful revision, it will be a good article. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: (F) suggestion.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266104.r001
Revision 1
26 Sep 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. What is the meaning of “Psychological Constructs” representing in the present study Response: “Psychological Constructs” in the present study represent the psychological variables of the Transtheoretical Model which include, Processes of change, Decisional balance, and Exercise Self-efficacy. See line 78-82. 2. Lack of rationale to support the model. SEM use to test the model not to develop model. Therefore, need citation/theories/model to support the indirect/mediation variable/structure of the model Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We added a citation in the last paragraph of Introduction section regarding rationale to support the model. See line 99-103. a. Why TTM as mediator (even mediation not in the analysis but the present paper focus on indirect effect)? Response: The indirect relationship is part of the SEM analysis. It is not the focus of the paper. But it provides additional information about the indirect relationship of motives for PA and psychological constructs on the amount of PA. If the indirect relationship is significant, it indicates that there is a significant mediator in the model. b. Kindly present and report direct effect when reported indirect effect Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Direct effects are reported in Table 3 (standardised regression coefficient). Thus, we do not repeat the direct effects results in Table 4. c. Kindly present the outcome of measurement model in brief. Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Outcome of measurement model presented in section “Measures and Materials” as we adopted the translated Malay version of all the scales from the previous validation studies (see line 124-183). Thus, the measurement model is not described in the present paper. d. Three model reported and final Model 3 used according to the model fit values. However, which item(s) deleted or not fulfil the mode requirement. Too brief and not clear, kindly enhance. Response: We have now added the removed pathways from the model 1 to obtain model 2 in the first paragraph of Structural Model subsection. Additional pathways based on the modification index recommendation were presented in the second paragraph. e. Table 3 present the significant path, how about the non-significant path(s). The path deleted from the model during model fit or during the measurement model analysis or during the structural model analysis? Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The path deleted from the model during the structural model analysis as stated in subsection Structural Model. f. How the value of indirect effect calculates? Where the significant value from? Response: The value of indirect effects and its p-values were obtained from the Mplus output. It is part of the SEM analysis. We have futher explained this in line 222. 3. What the age (years) of the participants? Kindly report in group, not mean. Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have now added age group of the participants in Table 1. 4. Discussion too brief and more focus on reported previous studies. Discussion should align with the purpose of the study. a. What the overall contribution? -23% refer to good or moderate etc? Response: The overall R2 on amount of PA indicated that 23% of variance in amount of PA could be explained by PA motives (others’ expectation and psychological condition) and decisional balance (Pros). We do not interpret the 23% as good or moderate, because the interpretation is very depend on the field of study. There is no gold standard available in the literature to label the level of coefficient of determination (R2). We report the values and allowed readers to make their own judgement. b. What the contribution of indirect effect presented in this model outcome? What’s the value or impact of the findings? Response: We have now added a paragraph in the discussion to explain on the value or impact of the findings on the participants. See line 389-400. 5. No implication and further research suggestion. Kindly revise and enchance the Discussion. Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggetion. We have now added a paragraph (last) in the Discussion section to discuss future studies recommendations. Reviewer #2: 1. Title: Include the place of study Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added place of study (Malaysia) in the title. 2. Abstract: the study design used was Mixed method, so the term cross sectional and purpose sampling are not important. sample size and sampling method for both quantitative and qualitative design need to be presented in the methods section. Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We rephrased the sentence to indicate that was only a cross-sectional study design and non-probability sampling method purposive sampling was used. We also added the sample size of the present study in the method section. 3. Introduction: Psychologically, the transtheoretical model (TTM) is a questionnaire...(TTM is a behavior change model not a questionnaire). Response: We have now rephrased the the sentence in the third paragraph. 4. Materials and Methods; the study design section needs clarity. sampling method and participant section or sampling procedure are not clear.describe each study designs used, how participants were chosen, how many etc. take the statement "All participants were initially required to complete consent forms before the study began as an indication that they volunteered and were willing to participate in this study" to ethical consideration section. the Measures and Materials is nice.from whom you collect the data? patient them selves or their medical card. some relevant variables such as religion are missed. if you used cards, it secondary data and you should clearly mention that you used secondary data and its limitations. Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We added clarification in the first paragraph of Study design section regarding the cross-sectional study design and non-randomized sampling for this study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of participants are included in the same paragraph. We also removed the statement "All participants were initially required to complete consent forms before the study began as an indication that they volunteered and were willing to participate in this study" to ethical consideration section. The data was collected from the patient themselves, not from their medical card. We did not collect their religion variables. 5. Results: the last two variables in table one are not demographic characteristics. Rather, they are clinical. the title of tables need to be written properly. what where and when for each table. the final model( the relationship between the pathways and the PA) should be interpreted in detail. This is the core of your research and same is true in discussion section. You use only a cross sectional quantitative study. at the beginning it seems you used a mixed method. In general it is a good work. there are some spelling errors like the word University in many sections. with careful revision, it will be a good article. Response: We thank for the comment. The title of the tables have been revised properly. The final model has been further interpreted in detail in the Discussion section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266104.r002
28 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Hoh Boon-Peng, Editor PONE-D-21-23408R1Structural Equation Model of Psychological Constructs of Transtheoretical Model, Motives for Physical Activity, and Amount of Physical Activity among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in MalaysiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kueh, 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 Feb 11 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, Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD 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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed and explained. Author(s) amended and improved the manuscript with justification. Suggest for formatting. Reviewer #2: Thank you dear authors, i realize that most of the comments are corrected. However, i have still concern on the sample size determination and sample section. You need to show how you come up with 331 participants/calculate showing the formula and the parameters used and how you chose them. I am not convinced about the selection of your study participants. In addition, include how you collected the data and the quality control measure used . ****** 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.0266104.r003
Revision 2
1 Mar 2022 Author Response Reviewer 2: 1. Thank you dear authors, i realize that most of the comments are corrected. However, i have still concern on the sample size determination and sample section. You need to show how you come up with 331 participants/calculate showing the formula and the parameters used and how you chose them. I am not convinced about the selection of your study participants. In addition, include how you collected the data and the quality control measure used . Response: We thank you for the comment. We have added the sample size calculation using monte carlo simulation in Mplus software. New subsection for this part. Also, we added new subsection explaining on how data collection and participants’ recruitment were performed. References also revised according to the additional citation in the sample size calculation subsection. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266104.r004
15 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Hoh Boon-Peng, Editor Structural Equation Model of Psychological Constructs of Transtheoretical Model, Motives for Physical Activity, and Amount of Physical Activity among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Malaysia PONE-D-21-23408R2 Dear Dr. Kueh, 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, Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed and amended. Article improve and enhance accordingly. Suggest for acceptance Reviewer #2: I have still some comments to be considered by the authors. 1. In the introduction of the abstract, before you state the objective , it is better to put a ststement about the research gap. you can take form the last paragraph of the intoruction. 2. I am not convinced why participants are selected purposively? What was the purpose of seclection? You can interview all patients visiting the during your data collection period and untill you get the calculated sample size. 3. table 1 ; the variables presented are not only demographic. example; Hg A1C.BMI With careful revision, i accept it ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266104.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Hoh Boon-Peng, Editor PONE-D-21-23408R2 Structural Equation Model of Psychological Constructs of Transtheoretical Model, Motives for Physical Activity, and Amount of Physical Activity among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Malaysia Dear Dr. Kueh: 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. Hoh Boon-Peng Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266104.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 .