Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 26, 2021
Decision Letter - Forough Mortazavi, Editor

PONE-D-21-29131

Risk factors and prognosis of acute lactation mastitis developing into a breast abscess

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gao,

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.

Specifically: 

Key elements of study design  

The setting and location  

Any efforts to address potential sources of bias

Limitations of the study  

The innovation of the work

The diagnostic criteria of breast abscess

Presentation of the data

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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,

Forough Mortazavi

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

 The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supportted by the Joint Medical Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Health Commission and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau(2020FYYX135). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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:

“Lili Jiang received the award. This research was supportted by the Joint Medical Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Health Commission and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau(2020FYYX135). URL:http://wsjkw.cq.gov.cn/.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting the manuscript to PLOS ONE. According to the reviewers’ comments and my evaluation, the manuscript need careful attention and must be improved according to all the comments.

The Title of the study must indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term. The present title is suitable for a longitudinal study.

Introduction needs explanations for the necessity of the work. The rates of breastfeeding initiation and continuation in the country should be included in the introduction section.

PLS present key elements of study design in the methods section

PLS describe the setting and location including the number of deliveries and the type of hospital in which the data collected.

PLS describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias

PLS describe limitations of the study both in the abstract and in discussion.

[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: No

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: No

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: No

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: Thank you for your manuscript describing risk factors for mastitis to become a breast abscess. I have a few comments and queries:

1. Abstract- I don't think that your results as described lead to the conclusion that USS guided biopsy is essential - why not milk culture which is much less invasive?

2. Background - your background is important, I would emphasise the % of women who give up breastfeeding because of mastitis

3. Methods - How was the data collected? From hospital information systems or via hospital IDs? If so, the data was not anonymised directly. What was your denominator of deliveries, what type of hospital is the data collected from (high risk, normal etc.)

4. Results - your data summary of risk factors with % would be better presented in a table. Also, you do not mention in your abstract that the majority of women are primiparous - which could mean that better breastfeeding advice is needed to avoid breast abscess. Similarly bacterial cultures would be better in a table.Did you test whether MSSA or MRSA had higher risk of abscess formation? You dont mention in your abstract that the majority of women would have received inadequate treatment because of a high rate of penicillin resistance. Would this not mean that guidelines for therapy need to be changed?

5. Discussion - your discussion doesn't bring out the limitations to your study (these are in your conclusions but do'nt account for some of the factors above).

Reviewer #2: 1. This study explored the risk factors associated with the development of a breast abscess due to breast mastitis and clarified that the formation of breast abscesses is multifactorial. The data is very detailed and well represented.

2. But the author mentioned little about the innovation of this work, which makes the study more like a mere validation of previous ones. It may be helpful to rewrite the introduction and Discussion sections.

3.The diagnostic criteria of breast abscess are not very clear. Should non-echo areas and low echo areas be present simultaneously?

**********

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.

Revision 1

I have uploaded a file named "Respond to Reviewers". If you have any questions, please contact us.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Forough Mortazavi, Editor

PONE-D-21-29131R1Risk factors and prognosis of acute lactation mastitis developing into a breast abscess:a retrospective longitudinal study in China.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 28 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,

Forough Mortazavi

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

Thank you for resubmitting the manuscript together with some revisions. In order to move forward with this, however, we are requesting further revisions, particularly related to the following points:

1. There is a discrepancy between the authors’ response to PLOS ONE Clinical Studies Checklist regarding the ethics approval of the study and their remarks on the same subject in the methods section of the manuscript. In the PLOS ONE Clinical Studies Checklist, the authors state, “We did not obtain ethical approval, because our study was a retrospective study of medical records, and all data were fully anonymized.” But in the methods section, the authors state, “This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Women and Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.”

2. With regard to the financial disclosure, the authors state, “This research was supported by the Joint Medical Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Health Commission and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau(2020FYYX135. URL:http://wsjkw.cq.gov.cn/.” But the URL given by them does not work.

3. Also, the data supporting the contents of tables 1 and 2 are missing in the Excel file.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

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 #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 #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 #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.

Revision 2

1. There is a discrepancy between the authors’ response to PLOS ONE Clinical Studies Checklist regarding the ethics approval of the study and their remarks on the same subject in the methods section of the manuscript. In the PLOS ONE Clinical Studies Checklist, the authors state, “We did not obtain ethical approval, because our study was a retrospective study of medical records, and all data were fully anonymized.” But in the methods section, the authors state, “This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Women and Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.”

At the initial stage of submission, the ethical requirements of PLOS ONE mentioned that if the article is a retrospective analysis of medical data, it does not require the approval of the ethics committee. Therefore, we did not submit relevant documents to the ethics committee at the beginning. But after submitting the manuscript, one of the reviewers reminded us how we collected the data, and if it was through the hospital's information system, the data was not directly anonymous. We respect the opinions of the reviewers. Therefore, we supplemented the medical ethics approval document.

2. With regard to the financial disclosure, the authors state, “This research was supported by the Joint Medical Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Health Commission and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau(2020FYYX135. URL:http://wsjkw.cq.gov.cn/.” But the URL given by them does not work.

This research was supported by the Joint Medical Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Health Commission and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau(2020FYYX135). The funded project was published on the official website of Chongqing Municipal Health Commission. We updated the URL, but the relevant document is in Chinese. Our approval is posted on page 9, line 4, serial number 135.URL http://wsjkw.cq.gov.cn/zwgk_242/wsjklymsxx/ylws_266434/yzgl_266435/gzxx/202009/W020200917627904433036.pdf.

3. Also, the data supporting the contents of tables 1 and 2 are missing in the Excel file.

We uploaded the data for Tables 1 and 2.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Forough Mortazavi, Editor

PONE-D-21-29131R2Risk factors and prognosis of acute lactation mastitis developing into a breast abscess:a retrospective longitudinal study in China.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gao,

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 Sep 15 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,

Forough Mortazavi

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. In order to move forward with this, however, we are requesting further revisions including:

1. In table 4, the reference group for the ‘white blood cell count’ variable should be identified.

2. Lines 83-85 should be revised.: [(3) a body temperature > 37.3℃; or (4) routine blood test results that showed increased white blood cells (WBCs) or neutrophils or increased C reactive protein levels. (4) Patients with positive milk culture.] PLS check the text again.

3. I noticed that in your responses to the reviewers’ comments you state, “It is a specialist general hospital for the treatment of women's and children's diseases. About 17,000 women give birth in our hospital every year.” This information should be stated in the methods section of the manuscript, too.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Revision 3

Dear Editors:

I have revised the manuscript entitled " Risk factors and prognosis of acute lactation mastitis developing into a breast abscess:a retrospective longitudinal study in China." as required by the reviewers.

We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Daxue Li and Han Gao

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Forough Mortazavi, Editor

Risk factors and prognosis of acute lactation mastitis developing into a breast abscess:a retrospective longitudinal study in China.

PONE-D-21-29131R3

Dear Dr. Gao,

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,

Forough Mortazavi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Forough Mortazavi, Editor

PONE-D-21-29131R3

Risk factors and prognosis of acute lactation mastitis developing into a breast abscess:a retrospective longitudinal study in China.

Dear Dr. Gao:

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. Forough Mortazavi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .