“If it is not made easy for me, I will just not bother”. A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to recycling plastics

Deborah Roy; Emma Berry; Martin Dempster

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267284

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 23, 2021
16 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Reginald B. Kogbara, Editor PONE-D-21-36666“If it is not made easy for me, I will just not bother”. A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to Recycling PlasticsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Berry, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please carefully consider the comments of both reviewers and address them as they are required for acceptance. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 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, Reginald B. Kogbara, Ph.D. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (ESPRC) Grant number EP/S025545/1. " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://epsrc.ukri.org/" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We thank all the participants for donating their time to help with this study. This work was supported by the ESPRC [Grant number EP/S025545/1]." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (ESPRC) Grant number EP/S025545/1. " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://epsrc.ukri.org/" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No ****** 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: In my opinion, the authors should put the procedure for gathering data in one method first then separate between direct interview and by online. In this case, author mentioned total number of respondents first then separate. In this manuscript, authors seemed set aside online respondents. It was looked from their statement in page 24 (A separate survey...). From this point, authors seemed less satisfaction with number of respondents of direct interview or the results of direct interview. Authors should be neutral, so respondents (both direct interview and online) should have the same position. We have to respect all of their opinion. Or authors can compare between direct respondents versus online. So in this case statistical analysis are needed. Further, authors should add a proof or a study that plastics can/ can not be recycle. Here, terminology of recycle has to be explained whether just re-use, re-pair, or fully re-cycle to be different form, such as become a WPC (wood plastics composite) product. Recycle here means what? In addition to recycle, did the authors think plastic can be degraded in nature? Issue of microplastics in the environment have been hot nowadays. Some sentences were needed to explain more, such as impact of recycling the plastics (pollution in soil and air/ because of plastics combustion), benefits or drawback of these actions, etc Reviewer #2: The paper investigates an important issues using COM-B model. However, the introduction and method section is very confusing. A through revision of introduction and method is required before going through the result. ****** 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: PONE-D-21-36666.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-36666_comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267284.r001
Revision 1
28 Jan 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewers and Editor for PLOS ONE, Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment upon our paper. Please find a detailed response to each of your comments in the tables enclosed in the document entitled 'Response to Reviewers', along with a ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ version of the new manuscript where your suggested changes have been visibly made. Also, we have provided an unmarked final version named ‘Manuscript’. Please view the ‘All mark-up’ version of the tracked changes document or refer to the 'clean manuscript' in the PDF proof and this way, the line and page numbers will align with each specific comment addressed. We have attempted to respond to the comments you made in the PDF version of the submitted manuscript first which is Section 1 of the document 'Response to Reviewers'. This is followed by our response to the main comments sent to us in a word document. They overlap in some instances, and so we cross referenced where this is the case. All the changes are in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ paper and so any line and page numbers we provide to direct you relate to this tracked change document and not the final clean manuscript. Furthermore, we have implemented changes as instructed by the editor: we have adhered to the PLOS ONE file and document formatting; additional information regarding the funders input is as follows “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”; and we have removed funding information from the acknowledgments section in the manuscript. Best wishes, Emma Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers..docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267284.r002
9 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Reginald B. Kogbara, Editor PONE-D-21-36666R1“If it is not made easy for me, I will just not bother”. A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to Recycling PlasticsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Berry, 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 consider both reviewers' comments carefully, especially regarding the methods section discussing the surveys employed, and address the issues raised as they are required for acceptance. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 23 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-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Reginald B. Kogbara, Ph.D. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Please response my comments both specifically and in the manuscript. This is important although your second draft of manuscript is better now. My previous comments were: In my opinion, the authors should put the procedure for gathering data in one method first then separate between direct interview and by online. In this case, author mentioned total number of respondents first then separate. In this manuscript, authors seemed set aside online respondents. It was looked from their statement in page 24 (A separate survey...). From this point, authors seemed less satisfaction with number of respondents of direct interview or the results of direct interview. Authors should be neutral, so respondents (both direct interview and online) should have the same position. We have to respect all of their opinion. Or authors can compare between direct respondents versus online. So in this case statistical analysis are needed. Further, authors should add a proof or a study that plastics can/ cannot be recycle. Here, terminology of recycle has to be explained whether just re-use, re-pair, or fully re-cycle to be different form, such as become a WPC (wood plastics composite) product. Recycle here means what? In addition to recycle, did the authors think plastic can be degraded in nature? Issue of microplastics in the environment have been hot nowadays. Some sentences were needed to explain more, such as impact of recycling the plastics (pollution in soil and air/ because of plastics combustion), benefits or drawback of these actions, etc. Reviewer #2: I would like to thank Authors for the revision. The paper has improved. However, the manuscript needs additional work, a major revision. This includes clear explanation of methods and surveys, presenting result in more effectively and improving the readability. I have comments in PDF version as well as separate comment by section in word file. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 24022022 Plos ONE.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-36666_R1 WITH COMMENT.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-36666-R1- Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267284.r003
Revision 2
4 Apr 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Thank you for the comments provided. Below we have detailed how each comment has been addressed (red text) and we have marked changes in the ‘Manuscript with Track Changes’. Page numbers below align with the ‘Simple Mark-up’/ clean version of the document. Reviewer 1: The second draft of manuscript is better now, unfortunately I cannot find the specific answers or responses of the authors to my previous comments as copy paste below: In my opinion, the authors should put the procedure for gathering data in one method first then separate between direct interview and by online. In this case, author mentioned total number of respondents first then separate. In this manuscript, authors seemed set aside online respondents. It was looked from their statement in page 24 (A separate survey...). From this point, authors seemed less satisfaction with number of respondents of direct interview or the results of direct interview. Authors should be neutral, so respondents (both direct interview and online) should have the same position. We have to respect all of their opinion. Or authors can compare between direct respondents versus online. So in this case statistical analysis are needed. Thank you for these comments – we recognise the ambiguity of the survey methods and results and with respect to how these fit within the larger report and relate to the qualitative findings. We have separated the methods for each study and provided greater detail on each (see changes on pages 6-11) as well as more detail on the survey data results. Furthermore, we have separated and reworded the description of the survey findings (see pages 25/26). Further, authors should add a proof or a study that plastics can/ cannot be recycle. Here, terminology of recycle has to be explained whether just re-use, re-pair, or fully re-cycle to be different form, such as become a WPC (wood plastics composite) product. Recycle here means what? Thank you for this comment – we recognise that the term recycle carries with it certain assumptions and therefore we have added a definition in the introduction for the purposes of this research, which aligns with how we define and use this term with respect to the findings presented (see page 3/4 which we have also pasted here): “For clarity, for the purpose of this research we define (plastic) recycling behaviour as the act of disposing of a used (or no-longer-being-used) plastic packaging in a bin or other resource which is intended to recover that packaging for reprocessing.” In addition to recycle, did the authors think plastic can be degraded in nature? Issue of microplastics in the environment have been hot nowadays. Some sentences were needed to explain more, such as impact of recycling the plastics (pollution in soil and air/ because of plastics combustion), benefits or drawback of these actions, etc. Thank you for this comment – we recognise that the impact of recycling itself can be harmful and we have added detail on this in the ‘discussion of results’ section to propose additional considerations in the balance of the discussion (see page 30). We have also added a sentence in the introduction, which takes into account other preventative behaviours including the reuse and reduction of use of plastics (see page 3). Please response these comments first. Thank you. Reviewer 2: I would like to thank Authors for the revision. The paper has improved. However, the manuscript needs additional work, a major revision. This includes clear explanation of methods and surveys, presenting result in more effectively and improving the readability. I have comments in PDF version as well as separate comment by section in word file. Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript for a second time. Firstly, we have addressed he comments provided in the manuscript document, some of which overlap with the changes made to the points below. 1. Abstract: The author has revised the abstract. However, the revision is not sufficient. Currently abstract is long. Abstract need further work by directly focusing on the aim of the study, method and the key findings. Thank you for this comment – we have revised the abstract in line with the changes suggested. 2. Introduction: The introduction has improved but can benefit from one more round of revision especially removing long and complex sentences with the short and meaningful sentences and removing information that doesn’t add the discussion. We have removed or shortened long and redundant sentences throughout the introduction (however we have now also moved the description of the COM-B model from the methods to the introduction as we feel it is better placed earlier to provide context for the discussion of the model). 3. Method • The first paragraph, Is this paragraph should be revised to explain the strength of qualitative methods in the COM-B framework? and its advantage for this study using peer-reviewed sources. [This comment is also in the pdf version]. We have revised the start of the methods section in line with this suggestion – as mentioned, we have also the description of the COM-B model from the methods to the introduction as we feel it is better placed earlier to provide context for the discussion of the model (see changes on pages 6). • The author should sufficiently explain Why a semi-structured interview is deemed most appropriate for the study. This is described on page 6. • The method section should discuss both the surveys: online and interview and justify why two separate data collection process is implemented and how these two address the research question We have now separated the methods for each study and have provided greater detail on each. We also provide a rationale for including both studies in this paper with respect to the research aims (see changes on pages 6-11). 4. Result and discussion a. Introducing a new online survey in the middle of the result leaves the reader in confusion. Author should discuss all data collection strategies and the reasons for using two data collection strategy in the method section. As mentioned, we have now separated the methods for each study and provided greater detail on each, to include the rationale for including both studies in this paper (see changes on pages 6-11). b. Also, the result of the two surveys can be presented in different subsections. We have separated and reworded the description of the survey findings in the results section (see pages 25/26). c. As mentioned, the online survey has 756 respondents. The survey can provide meaningful insight into the study. However, the result is not well presented. As above, we have added to the description of the survey findings (see pages 25/26). d. I would suggest the following: Insert a paragraph discussing the survey process (if it is secondary information) mentioning the source of information is helpful. Also, use information in Table 2 like age and sex to discuss the participant characteristics. Then in the result insert an additional subsection and present the result. A chart may be easy to understand. Thank you for this suggestion, we have highlighted that this study is secondary on pages 6/7, and as mentioned above, we have separated the methods for each study and provided greater detail on each. Furthermore we have added a table displaying brief demographics for survey participants along with a short description of this (see changes on pages 6-11). e. Also, if there is a separate discussion, the section heading should result only not result and discussion. So doing, the author must shift any discussion from the result section to the discussion section. We have removed the term discussion from the results heading (page 11). f. Table 2 need revision. Please use a separate table to provide information on a variable with a different structure. For example, responses collected as Likert scale and yes/no(binary) can be separated and presented in a graph chart or different table. We have divided the questions that use different response structures into separate tables (see changes on pages 26). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267284.r004
6 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Reginald B. Kogbara, Editor “If it is not made easy for me, I will just not bother”. A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to Recycling Plastics PONE-D-21-36666R2 Dear Dr. Berry, 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, Reginald B. Kogbara, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267284.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Reginald B. Kogbara, Editor PONE-D-21-36666R2 “If it is not made easy for me, I will just not bother”. A Qualitative Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to Recycling Plastics Dear Dr. Berry: 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. Reginald B. Kogbara Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267284.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 .