Honey contamination from plant protection products approved for cocoa (Theobroma cacao) cultivation: A systematic review of existing research and methods

Richard G. Boakye; Dara A. Stanley; Blanaid White

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280175

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 24, 2022
19 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Javaid Iqbal, Editor PONE-D-22-31708Honey contamination from plant protection products approved for cocoa cultivation: a systematic review of existing research and methodsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Boakye, 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 Jun 03 2023 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, Javaid Iqbal, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We note that [Figures 3 and 4] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. 3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate ""supporting information"" files. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: The manuscript needs condensation. Very long flavorless sentences are found. Exaggeration is common. Inclusive results and discussions are needed. The overall manuscript should be reorganized. Data, especially results are not ordered. Some figures are traditional. Data of MRLs should be organized in a table. Reviewer #2: 1- There are multiple gaps in the references which must be corrected. 2- The main body of the article needs to be revised for English language. 3- There is no mention of pesticides approved for cacao cultivation in the MS. 4- page 28: Since the amount and type of pesticides used vary from one region to another, how can a specific standard for MRL be determined across borders? 5- page 31: It is a good idea to consider honey as an indicator of monitoring pesticides. But,In the leading and exporting countries of cocoa, isn't it better to analyze the residues of pesticides used, on the cocoa plant itself? ****** 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: Yes: Ayman A. Owayss 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: Manuscript_SLR_RB.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280175.r001
Revision 1
23 Jun 2023 Author Response Responses to Editor’s Comments Editor’s Remarks Editor’s remark 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Responses: The work has now been formatted in accordance with PLOS ONE's style guidelines using the suggested template. Editor’s remark 2. We note that [Figures 3 and 4] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be images which may be copyrighted. Responses: Thank you for highlighting this concern. The maps were drawn in Excel using Geonames. The Copyright requirements of Geonames (https://www.geonames.org/) are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which allows copying, redistribution and transformation of material in any medium or format so long as due recognition is given. In the manuscript previously submitted, the images were not given due acknowledgement or attributed to Geonames. We have updated the captions of the figures to attribute recognition in this revision. Editor’s remark 3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate ""supporting information"" files. Response: We appreciate your advice. The three tables have been added where necessary and have been deleted from the files in accordance with your instructions. The data for the MRLs that reviewers suggested we include is already in Table 3. We wish to indicate that tables designated as supplementary have been submitted and kept separate as requested. Reviewer's Responses to Questions & Comments 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: Yes Response: This study was primarily a literature review and therefore neither field nor lab experiments were necessary. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Response: We appreciate your inquiry on whether a suitable and sufficient statistical analysis was performed. Statistical analyses were neither applicable nor necessary in this research, as one reviewer noted. Our study's design eliminates the necessity for statistical analysis. Nevertheless, thorough quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out, and they are presented in our review with support from the provided tables, figures, and narratives. Editor’s 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Response: Both the reviewers gave 2 Yes so no further action was carried based on their responses. 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 Response: Because the language and wording of the book did not receive unanimous approval from the two reviewers, the manuscript has been reviewed in detail with the manuscript wording revised as appropriate to meet the standards of both the reviewers and PLOS ONE. We are certain that any ambiguity or grammatical errors that previously existed have been properly corrected by this version. Authors response to Reviewer 1: Comment 1 of reviewer 1 - Very long flavourless sentences are found. Response: We have read through the manuscript and edited any phrases that are excessively long Comment 2 of reviewer 1 - Exaggeration is common. Response: We have reviewed the manuscript in detail and revised as appropriate to ensure that all analysis and discussion is accurate and not exaggerated. In its current form, we are certain that overblown points have been reduced to accurately communicate our study's true conclusions. Comment 3 of reviewer 1 - The overall manuscript should be reorganized. Response: A number of sections have been reorganised including Section 3.2 which was formerly section 3.5. The period and geographical regions where studies are currently being conducted are smoothly transitioning into the various insecticides used in those regions. Comment 4 of reviewer 1 - Data, especially results are not ordered. Response: We extensively address this comment in our response to reviewer 1's Comment 3. As previously mentioned, part 3.2, which is now section 3.5, formerly interrupted the flow of the results presentation. Sections 3.1 in this updated version discuss the time frame and locations where the experiments were conducted. Following this, sections 2 and 3 list every pesticide that was found throughout the period and all those that exceed the MRL, along with an updated table. The types of honey that were analyzed and the sampling frequency are then highlighted in Section 4. Then, Sections 5 and 6 cover all topics relating to methodology. We think the new version's result section's data is thoughtfully organized Comment 5 of reviewer 1 - Some figures are traditional. Response: Changes have been made to Figures 2 and 6. For better comparison of the frequency of detections, figure 6, in particular, has been converted from pie chat to bar chat. Comment 6 of reviewer 1 - Data of MRLs should be organized in a table Response: We are aware of the reviewer's request for the MRL data to be arranged in a table. We would like to point out that Table 3—which was provided as a separate attachment in accordance with the submission guidelines—already contains the data for the MRLs. However, we have included it in the manuscript as the editors requested, and we anticipate that it will satisfy the reviewer's comment. Comment 7 of reviewer 1 - The manuscript needs condensation. Response: The manuscript has been reviewed and condensed by approximately 20%. Comment 8 of reviewer 1 - Inclusive results and discussions are needed. Response: Data extracted from the included studies based on Table 1, designed to guide data extraction, have fully been presented and given sufficient discussions. In response to reviewer’s comments, results and discussions have been re-evaluated and updated accordingly. Authors response to Reviewer 2: Comment 1 of reviewer 2- There are multiple gaps in the references which must be corrected. Response: We appreciate you highlighting this. We have updated the document to fix all identified reference gaps. Comment 2 of reviewer 2- The main body of the article needs to be revised for English language. Response: We reviewed the entire text in detail and corrected any sentences that we believed needed work in response to reviewer 2's comments. Before looking more closely at the remaining sentences, we initially focused on the areas that reviewers had called attention to. In the amended manuscript, all areas that have been changed are highlighted with track modifications. Comment 3 of reviewer 2- There is no mention of pesticides approved for cacao cultivation in the MS. Response: The reviewer’s comment is helpful, because it has highlighted for us that we should bring the list of pesticides approved for cocoa cultivation from supplementary information into the manuscript itself. This has now been included in the revised manuscript. This should aid the reader when we then discuss specific compounds on this list throughout the manuscript. Examples of where this list is utilised include in section 3.2, where it is stated, "Eleven approved insecticides for cocoa cultivation, namely capsaicin, chlorantraniliprole, thiamethoxam, acetaprimid, etofenprox, indoxacarb, pirimiphosmethyl, promecarb, pyrethrum, sulfoxaflor, and teflubenzuron, and one herbicide. In addition, we said on page 6 that there were 2 herbicides, 23 insecticides, and 17 fungicides on the list of chemicals authorized for use in cocoa farming. It should also aid the reader in their understanding of the heatmaps in figure 5. Both the pesticides authorized for use in cocoa farming and every other pesticide found throughout the study period covered by all publications are shown in Figure 5 and Figures S1 to S4. Comment 4 of reviewer 2- page 28: Since the amount and type of pesticides used vary from one region to another, how can a specific standard for MRL be determined across borders? Response: We acknowledge the reviewer's worry regarding our study's use of a single standard—more particularly, the EU MRL—to evaluate MRL across international borders and think this concern is well-founded. First, while pesticides vary, the residues that can affect human health do not change, and given that the EU is such a large market even foods grown in different countries and regions still need to meet these MRL levels for sale in the EU. The FAO established the Codex Alimentarius in 1963 with the mandate to establish safety standards for all foods and animal feed in order to ensure their suitability for human consumption. In determining MRLs for its regional block, the European Union, one of the largest regional market blocks, considers both Codex Alimentarius requirements and good agricultural practices. Additionally, the EU MRL was employed as the standard of measurement in more than 95% of the research we analyzed for this analysis. As a result, the EU MRL was chosen for our study because it was already being used by the bulk of studies. The concentrations of identified pesticides indicated in various units were converted to milligrams of residue per kilogram of feed commodity (mg/kg), which is used in the EU, to ensure direct comparison. It was simple to compare units across borders after all the units were standardized. The fact that different countries' usage can be a potential source of misunderstanding was another important conclusion that emerged from our research, and for that reason we advocate for the necessity of standardizing MRL units across national borders. Comment 5 of reviewer 2- page 31: It is a good idea to consider honey as an indicator of monitoring pesticides. But In the leading and exporting countries of cocoa, isn't it better to analyse the residues of pesticides used, on the cocoa plant itself? Response: This is a really interesting question from the reviewer. The short answer is that it depends, and on multiple factors, including the purpose of the study, the availability of samples for analysis (particularly for retrospective analysis), and the availability of benchmarking data. In our case, the goal of our review was to gauge environmental pesticide contamination in cocoa growing countries. Honey was chosen for our investigation because it has been widely as a proxy for environmental monitoring, and accepted for use as such. Due to the foraging behaviour of bees, pesticide residues found in honey may be interpreted as a reflection of pesticides used in the area surrounding the hive and, thus, as a reflection of the environment's overall health. Additionally, due to honey’s chemicophysical properties, compounds incorporated tend to be stable, allowing for retrospective analysis. In addition to the fact that honey may be used to measure the levels of environmental pollution, the evaluation of pollutants in honey can also reveal if the honey is safe for ingestion by people. Additionally, herbicides have been named as one of the factors contributing to a global drop of pollinators. Therefore, it is possible to deduce the potential consequences of pesticides found in honey on honeybees. The possibility of excess pesticide applications to cocoa affecting the general environment should be a concern because studies have shown that only about 0.01% of applied pesticides are determined to reach their target with the remaining filtering into general ecosystem. For this reason, using pesticide residues in honey to measure environmental contamination makes sense. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280175.r002
7 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor Honey contamination from plant protection products approved for cocoa (Theobroma cacao ) cultivation: A systematic review of existing research and methods PONE-D-22-31708R1 Dear Dr. Boakye, 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you authors for diligently revising your work. Reviewers have checked it and the editor agrees with their recommendation to accept it for publication. Thank you for finding PlosONE as your journal of choice. Look forward to your future scholarly contributions 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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 #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: None............. .................. ..... . ..... ......................................... .. Reviewer #3: The authors carried out a study on Honey contamination from plant protection products approved for cocoa (Theobroma cacao) cultivation: A systematic review of existing research and methods. This is an article of interest in the field of science. 1. The topic is unique and worthy of researching. 2. The abstract is informative and do reflect the body of the paper. 3. The introduction provides sufficient background information for readers in the immediate field to understand the problem/hypotheses. 4. The text is well arranged, and the logic is clear. The related concepts were introduced clearly. The readability is sufficient. 5. The proposed simulation /scheme was quite novel 6. The theoretical analysis in this article is strong. 7. All figures/tables are clear enough to summarize the results for presentation to the readers. All figures/tables are well referred to in the text. 8. The deduced conclusions were based on the research methods/cases 9. The conclusions are tenable. With these conclusions, much progress has been made when compared with the existing research findings. 10. The reference section is informative and accurate. ****** 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: Ayman A Owayss Reviewer #3: Yes: Iheanyi Omezuruike Okonko ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280175.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Oct 2023 Acceptance Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-22-31708R1 Honey contamination from plant protection products approved for cocoa (Theobroma cacao ) cultivation: A systematic review of existing research and methods Dear Dr. Boakye: 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. Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280175.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .