Creating a foundation for origin of life outreach: How scientists relate to their field, the public, and religion

Karl Wienand; Lorenz Kampschulte; Wolfgang M. Heckl

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282243

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 21, 2022
12 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Steve Zimmerman, Editor PONE-D-22-02824Creating a foundation for Origin of Life outreach: How scientists relate to their field, the public, and religionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wienand, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer has made a number of suggestion for improvement (see comments below). Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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, Steve Zimmerman, PhD Associate Editor, PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Karl Wienand was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) with Project-ID 364653263—TRR 235” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We wish to thank the members of the CRC 235 Emergence of Life for their kind and generous cooperation during the interview process and Zara Gough for language help. KW is grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—Project-ID 364653263—TRR 235 for funding.” 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: “Karl Wienand was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) with Project-ID 364653263—TRR 235” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. 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. 6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: This article tackles an interesting subject. A number of revisions could improve the final version. Some are small, eg in line 47 the authors state that the majority of research on creationism has taken place in the US but they could also easily reference recent contributions on Europe. Similarly in lines 49-56 statistics are compared regarding scientists in Western Europe and the general German population- it would be better if the comparison groups were the same' ie German scientists w the German general population or Western European scientists with the general Western European population. Additionally, in lines 91-94 the religious identity of the scientists was described and it was not clear regarding those scientists of non-Christian backgrounds- there were no Muslim, Hindu or Jewish scientists? This needs some further elaboration. On the other hand it seemed that the material in lines 104-116 could be switched to a note and the sentences in lines 310-313 could be moved to an earlier section. Some of the quotations brought from the interviews were not always clear, eg Table 3, neutral towards research: "I think they would, in the first place, do not understand why we do it." There were also some occasional lines in the text that should be adjusted (e.g. line 369). The main substantive question I have is regarding the formulation of the tables. More discussion of the categories would be helpful to explain the choices made by the researchers and to describe further the contours of the typology they found (eg the examples brought for single actors vs groups were more focused on the constructive nature of differing views where as those who saw camps seemed to describe this in competitive terms-- is this significant, coincidental etc?) I look forward to seeing this further explication and expanded discussion as I am very interested in this research. ****** 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 ******** [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.0282243.r001
Revision 1
24 Oct 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you very much once again for considering my paper for publication in PLOS ONE. Based on the Editor and Reviewer’s suggestions and comments, we were able to extensively edit the Manuscript. We clarified, improved, and extended the discussions as much as possible. Moreover we substantially expanded the supplementary materials to address the concerns of more specialized and/or interested readers. Below our answers to each of the Reviewer’s comments. Sincerely, Karl Wienand • In line 47 the authors state that the majority of research on creationism has taken place in the US but they could also easily reference recent contributions on Europe. We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out. Indeed, limiting the discussion of creationism debates to the US environment could be reductive. We expanded the references (particularly Refs 14—16) to include the European context, as well as debates around non-Christian creationism. • In lines 49-56 statistics are compared regarding scientists in Western Europe and the general German population- it would be better if the comparison groups were the same' ie German scientists w the German general population or Western European scientists with the general Western European population. We thank the reviewer for the comment. Comparing more uniform data provides a better picture of secularization among scientists. We researched different sources (i.e., Refs 20, 21) to compare our sample with Western European and EU general population. • In lines 91-94 the religious identity of the scientists was described and it was not clear regarding those scientists of non-Christian backgrounds- there were no Muslim, Hindu or Jewish scientists? This needs some further elaboration. No, the sample happened to not include any scientists with Hindu or Jewish background. One was raised Muslim but no longer identifies as affiliated. We amended the statement for clarity, but left the part still intentionally vague to protect the participant’s anonymity. • The material in lines 104-116 could be switched to a note These considerations, though admittedly not necessary to replicate the study, had to be included in the Methods section following a request from PLOS ONE. • The sentences in lines 310-313 could be moved to an earlier section. We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We added a similar text to the beginning of the Results section. However, we also left the original lines in place, as a quick recap for readers who may have skipped directly to the Discussion section. • Some quotations brought from the interviews were not always clear We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In preparing the manuscript we had tried to leave the quotes as much as possible in their original form. As the reviewer points out, however, this caused problems, as it was sometimes unclear what the interviewees were referring to with “it”, “they”, etc. We edited quotes throughout the manuscript for clarity. All alterations to the original transcripts are denoted in square brackets. For example, the cited quote in Table 3 now reads: “I think they would, in the first place, do not understand why we do [this research].” • Some occasional lines in the text that should be adjusted (e.g. line 369) We thank the reviewer for the comment. We polished the entire text, of course starting from that line. • More discussion of the categories would be helpful to explain the choices made by the researchers and to describe further the contours of the typology they found (eg the examples brought for single actors vs groups were more focused on the constructive nature of differing views where as those who saw camps seemed to describe this in competitive terms-- is this significant, coincidental etc?) We thank the reviewer for the keen interest in the topic and the thoughtful remark. The example quote for “Single actors” was chosen because it stresses how the conflictual nature depends, according to this interviewee, only on the people involved (“it's always a history of person”). We expanded the manuscript text to clarify this example as well as the overall category. We also agree that interested readers should have access to a more detailed treatment of our classification process and rules. During the analysis we worked with a more comprehensive table than the one shown in the manuscript. This complete classification table included specific a priori rules that determined to which class a sentence would be assigned. While we still believe the summarized table in the main manuscript is more accessible for the broad readership of PLOS ONE, we agree that it may leave the boundaries too blurry for the interested reader. Therefore we added to the supplementary material the full rule table (S1 Table) that was used to analyze the interview content, as well as the rules delineating each the controversy and communication profiles (Tables S2 and S3, respectively). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282243.r002
13 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Margaret Williams, Editor Creating a foundation for Origin of Life outreach: How scientists relate to their field, the public, and religion PONE-D-22-02824R1 Dear Karl Wienand 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, Margaret Williams, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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) ****** 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: Comments- Specifics- 1- I sent emails regarding my comments on the abstract provided and a different version I found in the online supplementary file, but did not get a response (edits I had originally suggested on the abstract are below as are copies of the emails I sent). 2- The phrase “blessing and curse” is a bit strong and line 25 can be adjusted. 3- In line 30 the word “scientific” should be added before research to clarify. 4- Lines 37-38 could be expanded. These issues touch on people’s identity and self-understandings, but perhaps that will be in future publications. 5- The statistics offered in lines 51-57 are still not entirely parallel and clear, e.g. the percentage in the scientific community who identify with some religious affiliation is given, but not the parallel percentage in the general population. 6- Line 63— perhaps “controversies” instead of “the controversy”? 7- Lines 73-74 refers to “the scientific controversy” again—it seems this controversy should be explained/detailed. The phrase comes up later again as well e.g. line 156 etc- the controversy or even main controversies in the field call out for a line or two of explanation for the reader. 8- Line 116-17 need slight adjustment—people could opt out of questions they would rather not answer or not answer in full. 9- Line 139-40 Perhaps: Similar accusations (instead of violations)? Second half of sentence not entirely clear, perhaps: dogmatic attitudes are the most cited source of conflict? 10- 171-72- Which “discipline”? 11- 183 no “a” before “good” 12- Line 359- out of the box may not be the clearest phrase to use here 13- 383 consistent I did not do a fully copy editing of the document, but rather pointed out some issues that jumped out at me. Additionally while obviously quotations from informants need to be reported accurately, some of the quotes could use further adjustment for clarity, e.g.: I think already showing that the origin of life research is not just research to disprove that God exists. (12) It's kind of embarrassing to show to the public how researchers—which are thought to be the authority on knowledge—are fighting over if this molecule is prebiotic or not. (30) I think they would, in the first place, do not understand why we do [this research]. (28) General comment and question— 1- As I wrote in the initial review, I believe this subject of the interface of scientific research and science communication in the development of museum exhibits to be extremely interesting and important. I think that the authors have brought forth valuable new information. I also think that the article would benefit from having a second reviewer. I could offer a potential recommendation if needed. 2- The authors say that all of the data is available, but this does not include recordings or transcriptions of interviews—what is required to be available for a qualitative study? Editing I had previous done of abstract: 11 Origins of life (Ool) research is particularly challenging to communicate because of the 12 tension between its many disciplines and its nearness (find better word, connection?) to traditionally philosophical or 13 religious questions. To authentically represent scientists’ perspectives in the development of a museum 14 exhibition on Ool, we interviewed 46 researchers from diverse backgrounds (their backgrounds were diverse in some ways but not others correct? Perhaps this needs further thought?). We investigated 15 how they perceive their field (what do you mean? In terms of…?), (the nature of?) science communication, and the relation (of what?) with religion. 16 Results show that researchers actively participate in resolving the scientific debates, but 17 delegate the resolution of controversies involving non-scientific institutions (to whom?). Advocating 18 for science is the foremost communication goal in all contexts. Career stage, research 19 subject, religiosity, etc. (etc. is not great to use- suggest to adjust accordingly) influence the approach (adopted) to (relate to?) controversies and communication. Emails I sent: Question about article I am reviewing PONE-D-22-02824R1 Inbox Mon, Nov 7, 4:12 PM (10 days ago) to PLOS Dear Editor, I am currently reviewing an article, and I have noticed something that I would like to discuss with you. When I went to the website where supplementary information for the manuscript is stored, I found a better version of the abstract of the paper than that which I received. In fact I had begun to suggest a number of edits to the abstract as it was sent to me, but in the version I then found online the issues I had pointed to are already resolved. This makes me wonder if I have the correct, most updated, version of the article for review. I will paste the abstracts below, and will await advice from you. The rest of the paper could also use additional language editing, and of course would be a shame if I am wasting time on an old version. There are substantive comments to make, but the linguistic issues have been distracting. Thank you, The abstract in the manuscript sent to me: Abstract 11 Origins of life research is particularly challenging to communicate because of the 12 tension between its many disciplines and its nearness to traditionally philosophical or 13 religious questions. To authentically represent scientists’ perspective in a museum 14 exhibition, we interviewed 46 researchers from diverse backgrounds. We investigated 15 how they perceive their field, science communication, and the relation with religion. 16 Results show that researchers actively participate in resolving the scientific debate, but 17 delegate the resolution of controversies involving non-scientific institutions. Advocating 18 for science is the foremost communication goal in all contexts. Career stage, research 19 subject, religiosity, etc. influence the approach to controversies and communication. The improved abstract I found online (https://figshare.com/articles/figure/Supplementary_information_to_Creating_a_foundation_for_Origin_of_Life_outreach_How_scientists_relate_to_their_field_the_public_and_religion_/14703060/3) Origins of life (OoL) is a multi-disciplinary field at the cutting edge of research. At the same time, the field touches on traditionally philosophical and religious questions, like “What is life?” and “Where do we come from?” This tension makes it particularly challenging for science communi-cation. To better understand OoL researchers and to authentically incorporate their views in a planned exhibition project, this study analyses the perspectives scientist have on their filed, on science communication, and the relation of science and religion. A total of 46 researchers from diverse disciplines and backgrounds were interviewed. While they actively participate and re-solve the scientific debate within OoL, they keep religion separate and delegate the resolution of conflicts with it. The communication of both controversies aims most often to advocate for sci-ence. Conflict and communication profiles are linked to a variety of factors such as career stage, research subject, and religiosity. Fri, Nov 11, 2:34 PM (6 days ago) to PLOS Hello- I wrote earlier in the week with questions regarding discrepancies I found between versions of the abstract of the article in the on line supplemental folder and the one in the paper I downloaded. If in any case I should just review the article as is, I will work on it next week. If there is a response to the question I sent I would be glad to hear. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282243.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Feb 2023 Acceptance Letter - Margaret Williams, Editor PONE-D-22-02824R1 Creating a foundation for Origin of Life outreach: How scientists relate to their field, the public, and religion Dear Dr. Wienand: 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 Professor Margaret Williams Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282243.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 .