Factors affecting clothing purchase intention in mobile short video app: Mediation of perceived value and immersion experience

Tian Hewei

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273968

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2021
23 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Jarosław Jankowski, Editor PONE-D-21-31016Factors Affecting Continuous Purchase Intention of Fashion Products on Social E-commerce: Moderating Effect of Fashion InvolvementPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hewei, 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 follow reviews with special focus on the theoretical contribution in the current manuscript and managerial applications. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 07 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, Jarosław Jankowski 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 noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: - https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/281522 The text that needs to be addressed involves the introduction. In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [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: No ****** 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: 1. Abstract must contain: (a) Originality of the research; (b) Research objective; (c) Method; (d) Empirical result; (e) Practical implications 2. Provide background information and set the context about your study in the context of research area (country), Introduce the specific topic of your research and explain why it is important, Mention past attempts to solve the research problem or to answer the research question and Conclude the Introduction by mentioning the specific objectives of your research. 3. 3. Specify methods and procedures of your study very clearly, as part of this section you can include research design, variables covered, data analysis method etc. 4. Prove the results and find a linkage among results, research questions and hypothesis by using previous studies/literature review, whether your hypothesis accepted or rejected, matches with similar results and dissimilar. If dissimilar, mention what cause. 5. References-Please follow the appropriate referencing system/ of journal’s guidelines accordingly. Best of Luck! Reviewer #2: This paper explores the relationship between interactivity of social e-commence, perceived value, immersive experience and continuous purchase intention based on the S-O-R framework for fashion products. The authors claim that social e-commence interactivity has a positive effect on consumers’ perceived value, immersive experience and continuous purchase intention of fashion products, perceived value influences immersive experience and continuous purchase intention, and immersive experience positively influences continuous purchase intention. The study is clear and significant. However, I have some concerns about this paper: 1. I doubt the theoretical contribution in the current manuscript. Past researches have shown the relationship between social media interactivity, perceived value, immersive experience and purchase intention (e.g., social media and purchase intention, Chang Ya Ping and Dong 2016; perceived interactivity and value, Li et al. 2021; perceived value and continuance intention, Changlin et al. 2020). So, the present research’s contribution hangs almost wholly on the novelty of the variable, continuous purchase intention. Authors should elaborate more about the concept of continuous purchase intention, especially about its difference from purchase intention. 2. The managerial application of the current research is limited. We have known that the interactivity of social media has many positive effects, including immersive experience, perceived value and purchase intention. Companies want to sell more products and the increased purchase intention of consumers are beneficial. Therefore, managers can utilize social media and maintain its interactivity. But what is the difference between continuous purchase intention and purchase intention? I advise that authors pay more attention to the suggestions about how to increase the interactivity of social media and the significance of the continuity of purchase intention. 3. I do not think the elaboration of the theory development is specific enough. For H1, social media interactivity has a significant impact on continuous purchase intention, the theory supporting this hypothesis only relies on the research of Chang Ya Ping and Dong (2016), and Gasawneh et al. (2020) who showed the social media positively affect the purchase intention. How the interactivity or social media influences the continuous purchase intention is missing. Authors should explain in detail how the effect of social media is working, i.e., the underlying process. The same as other hypotheses, authors should explain the theory development in more detail. 4. The research focuses on fashion products. I am wondering how you defined fashion products, and whether it is different from other kinds of products. Since the consumers of the fashion industry tend to have more social needs, interactivity seems to have a greater impact on consumers. Maybe the authors can discuss this in the future research part. 5. The whole writing should be polished, as there are several grammar errors in the manuscript. I therefore hope these comments, questions, and suggestions will be useful in helping you refine the manuscript. Kind regards and best of luck! ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273968.r001
Revision 1
12 Apr 2022 Author Response Thank you for your patience and kind suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the Manuscript PONE-D-21-31016 exactly according to the comments, and found these comments are very helpful. According to the suggestions, we have revised the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. We hope this revision can make our paper more acceptable. Special thanks to you for your careful comments. The revisions were addressed point by point below. Lists of Responses Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract must contain: (a) Originality of the research; (b) Research objective; (c) Method; (d) Empirical result; (e) Practical implications Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. The abstract has been reorganized and I hope this revision will contribute to the article. 2. Provide background information and set the context about your study in the context of research area (country), Introduce the specific topic of your research and explain why it is important, Mention past attempts to solve the research problem or to answer the research question and Conclude the Introduction by mentioning the specific objectives of your research. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have rewritten the introduction of the paper, and it has been revised in the text. 3. 3. Specify methods and procedures of your study very clearly, as part of this section you can include research design, variables covered, data analysis method etc. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have rewritten the methods and procedures of the paper, and it has been revised in the text. 4. Prove the results and find a linkage among results, research questions and hypothesis by using previous studies/literature review, whether your hypothesis accepted or rejected, matches with similar results and dissimilar. If dissimilar, mention what cause. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have linked relevant studies, explain whether they are consistent or inconsistent with our research conclusions, and explain the relevant reasons, and it has been revised in the text. 5. References-Please follow the appropriate referencing system/ of journal’s guidelines accordingly. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have revised and reorganized the references of the paper, and it has been revised in the text. Reviewer #2: This paper explores the relationship between interactivity of social e-commence, perceived value, immersive experience and continuous purchase intention based on the S-O-R framework for fashion products. The authors claim that social e-commence interactivity has a positive effect on consumers’ perceived value, immersive experience and continuous purchase intention of fashion products, perceived value influences immersive experience and continuous purchase intention, and immersive experience positively influences continuous purchase intention. The study is clear and significant. However, I have some concerns about this paper: 1. I doubt the theoretical contribution in the current manuscript. Past researches have shown the relationship between social media interactivity, perceived value, immersive experience and purchase intention (e.g., social media and purchase intention, Chang Ya Ping and Dong 2016; perceived interactivity and value, Li et al. 2021; perceived value and continuance intention, Changlin et al. 2020). So, the present research’s contribution hangs almost wholly on the novelty of the variable, continuous purchase intention. Authors should elaborate more about the concept of continuous purchase intention, especially about its difference from purchase intention. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. In the process of writing this paper, we did not highlight the contribution of this paper, which made this paper too dependent on previous research. In fact, we not only reorganize the variables, but also pay attention to the latest form of social e-commerce. This paper focuses on the clothing purchase intention of mobile short video application. Therefore, this paper has good theoretical value and practical significance for fashion marketing and mobile short video application marketing. Through the guidance of the reviewers, we can highlight the contribution of the paper and better translate the names of variables 2. The managerial application of the current research is limited. We have known that the interactivity of social media has many positive effects, including immersive experience, perceived value and purchase intention. Companies want to sell more products and the increased purchase intention of consumers are beneficial. Therefore, managers can utilize social media and maintain its interactivity. But what is the difference between continuous purchase intention and purchase intention? I advise that authors pay more attention to the suggestions about how to increase the interactivity of social media and the significance of the continuity of purchase intention. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We highlight the link between media interactivity and continued purchase intention, and it has been revised in the text. 3. I do not think the elaboration of the theory development is specific enough. For H1, social media interactivity has a significant impact on continuous purchase intention, the theory supporting this hypothesis only relies on the research of Chang Ya Ping and Dong (2016), and Gasawneh et al. (2020) who showed the social media positively affect the purchase intention. How the interactivity or social media influences the continuous purchase intention is missing. Authors should explain in detail how the effect of social media is working, i.e., the underlying process. The same as other hypotheses, authors should explain the theory development in more detail. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We feel that the hypotheses of the manuscript are not very clear, which brings a lot of trouble to the reviewer's review. After the guidance of the reviewer, we are impressed, so we rewrite all the hypotheses, and it has been revised in the text. 4. The research focuses on fashion products. I am wondering how you defined fashion products, and whether it is different from other kinds of products. Since the consumers of the fashion industry tend to have more social needs, interactivity seems to have a greater impact on consumers. Maybe the authors can discuss this in the future research part. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We apologize for our lax statement. Because our research belongs to the field of fashion marketing, we directly use fashion. In fact, it should be more accurate to use clothing, and it has been revised in the text. 5. The whole writing should be polished, as there are several grammar errors in the manuscript. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have invited native English editors to revise the grammar and expression of this paper. I hope this revision can make the expression of this paper more accurate, and it has been revised in the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20220408Aquaculture-Lists of Responses.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273968.r002
1 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Jarosław Jankowski, Editor PONE-D-21-31016R1Factors Affecting Clothing Purchase Intention in Mobile Short Video App: Mediation of Perceived Value and Immersion ExperiencePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hewei, 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 follow review and update the managerial implications and provide a figure with the mediation analysis.. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 16 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, Jarosław Jankowski Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been improved in this version. There are only some minor issues: 1. The managerial implications of this paper could be further elaborated. 2. A figure with the mediation analysis might be provided. ****** 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: Yes:** Md. Abu Issa Gazi, PhD Associate Professor, School of Management Jiujiang University, China 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.0273968.r003
Revision 2
15 Jun 2022 Author Response Lists of Responses 1.The managerial implications of this paper could be further elaborated. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have further elaborated the managerial implications of this paper, and it has been revised in the text. 2. A figure with the mediation analysis might be provided. Responses: Thanks for your careful revision and thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have made a figure with the mediation analysis (figure 2), and it has been revised in the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20220616Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273968.r004
19 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Yann Benetreau, Editor Factors Affecting Clothing Purchase Intention in Mobile Short Video App: Mediation of Perceived Value and Immersion Experience PONE-D-21-31016R2 Dear Dr. Hewei, 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, Yann Benetreau, PhD Division Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): When you submit your final version, please ensure to address the following requests: * please ensure that all authors provide an institutional email address, * please ensure that you consistently refer to yourself as 'I' instead of 'we' (we noticed one mention of 'we' in the methods section), and * PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts. Please proofread for typos and grammar. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273968.r005
Formally Accepted
4 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Yann Benetreau, Editor PONE-D-21-31016R2 Factors Affecting Clothing Purchase Intention in Mobile Short Video App: Mediation of Perceived Value and Immersion Experience Dear Dr. Hewei: 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. Yann Benetreau Staff Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273968.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 .