‘Microincisional trabeculectomy for glaucoma”

Aparna Rao; Sardar Khan; Sujoy Mukherjee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286020

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 26, 2023
26 Jan 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments plos one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286020.r001
7 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor PONE-D-23-01259‘Microincisional trabeculectomy for glaucoma”PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rao, 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. A reviewer have suggested a few minor changes that can be easily incorporated in a revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 21 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, Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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: “The author(s) 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. 3. 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. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. 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: N/A ****** 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: 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 project targets an interesting question and provides new insight into the field. It would benefit from more measured variables such as follow-up on post-op visual fields and visual acuities if possible. The provided data on rates of complications does seem to suggest that this study merits larger follow-up studies to confirm your findings. You should add the specific software and packages you used to perform your statistics. Reviewer #2: 1) Generally, I believe that the manuscript was well-written, clear, organized, and concise. I do not have much experience in statistical analysis so I am unable to comment on this matter, but from what I see, the tables, figures, and descriptions presented in the manuscript were clear and easily understandable. However, I think it may be more clear if the figures were located in the results section for easy reference (unless they are being considered as supplemental tables). If not placed in the results section, it would be easier to understand if legends were placed directly below the figures and tables. 2) There were a few grammatical/punctuational issues present, including: Abstract: "1day-1month" -> insert spaces to "1 day-1 month" Materials & Methods: "LV prasad eye institute" -> capitalize to "LV Prasad Eye Institute" "followed up at 1 week, 4 weeks, 6months" -> insert space to "6 months" Discussion: "increasing wave of MIGS procedures in glaucoma management is understandable They" -> insert period to "is understandable. They" "The Kahook dual blade (KDB) goniotomy procedure is has similar efficacy to other" -> reword to "goniotomy procedure has a similar efficacy to other" Table 2: "2mediciations" -> spelling error + insert space to "2 medications" 3) In both figures 1 and 3, the letters corresponding to specific to each image (A, B, C, etc.) could be larger and more clear to the reader. The letters seem to be a bit small and difficult to locate. Overall, this is an exciting finding and authors did a great job with presentation of results and explaining details concisely. Some improvements to the value of this study include another follow up after 6 months and increasing the sample size. ****** 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: Yes: Jessica Lee ******** [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.0286020.r002
Revision 1
8 Mar 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: This project targets an interesting question and provides new insight into the field. It would benefit from more measured variables such as follow-up on post-op visual fields and visual acuities if possible. The provided data on rates of complications does seem to suggest that this study merits larger follow-up studies to confirm your findings. You should add the specific software and packages you used to perform your statistics. Answer: We thank the reviewer for the encouragement of our work. The reviewer is very correct and bang on the actual benefits of any surgical procedure for glaucoma being the preservation of long-term visual function. This is exactly the reason why we are now following the patients with visual fields in a separate longitudinal study comparing MIT with trabeculectomy and GATT. The visual fields are usually done on an annual basis in India which is why we did not feel adding a 6months visual field data, would be informative with regards to the long-term visual field progression rates with each surgical procedure. We definitely will update the reviewers and readers on the long-term results in our future papers or even on a personal request. We apologize for not mentioning the software used for analysis in this study. We have now added this information, as suggested. Reviewer #2: 1) Generally, I believe that the manuscript was well-written, clear, organized, and concise. I do not have much experience in statistical analysis so I am unable to comment on this matter, but from what I see, the tables, figures, and descriptions presented in the manuscript were clear and easily understandable. However, I think it may be more clear if the figures were located in the results section for easy reference (unless they are being considered as supplemental tables). If not placed in the results section, it would be easier to understand if legends were placed directly below the figures and tables. Answers: We are very happy with the reviewer’s comments and pleased to share all the results of this new technique and any results of our future studies on this procedure on even a personal request. We would like to clarify that have made the figures separately available and not in the word document since adding them to the document decreases their resolution which is very crucial for understanding this procedure correctly. Also, the format of the manuscript is as per Plos One requirements which require files to be submitted separately with legends as per Plos One author instructions. 2) There were a few grammatical/punctuational issues present, including: Abstract: "1day-1month" -> insert spaces to "1 day-1 month" Materials & Methods: "LV prasad eye institute" -> capitalize to "LV Prasad Eye Institute" "followed up at 1 week, 4 weeks, 6months" -> insert space to "6 months" Discussion: "increasing wave of MIGS procedures in glaucoma management is understandable They" -> insert period to "is understandable. They" "The Kahook dual blade (KDB) goniotomy procedure is has similar efficacy to other" -> reword to "goniotomy procedure has a similar efficacy to other" Table 2: "2mediciations" -> spelling error + insert space to "2 medications" 3) In both figures 1 and 3, the letters corresponding to specific to each image (A, B, C, etc.) could be larger and more clear to the reader. The letters seem to be a bit small and difficult to locate. Overall, this is an exciting finding and authors did a great job with presentation of results and explaining details concisely. Some improvements to the value of this Answer: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions and all typos have been corrected in the revised manuscript. We have also made the letters in the figures bigger for easy visibility, as suggested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLos one comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286020.r003
25 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor PONE-D-23-01259R1‘Microincisional trabeculectomy for glaucoma”PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rao, 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. A learned reviewer have recommended description of statistical software and some related details, which must be included in a revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 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, Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: 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: 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 #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: Thank you for addressing our previous comments. The paper has made significant progress, but still requires some minor editing. Methods "student-t test" should be Student's t-test. Results There is a line where you need a space between '6' and 'months'. "Hyphema was seen in 4 eyes that resolved spontaneous." Spontaneous should be edited to spontaneously. You switch between writing numbers numerically and spelling them out, please pick a format for consistency. Discussion There are some sentences that could use minor editing. "The Kahook dual blade (KDB) goniotomy procedure has similar efficacy similar to other MIGS or ab-externo goniotomy in open-angle glaucoma, an2mediciations d primary congenital glaucoma [3-5,17,18]." Please revise here Reviewer #2: Authors completed all revisions and looks good. Grammar changes were made, and figures are more clear with clear labels. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286020.r004
Revision 2
29 Apr 2023 Author Response ¬¬To, The Editor, Dear Sir/Madam, We hereby re-submit our revised manuscript “Microincisional trabeculectomy for glaucoma “along with the point-point clarification to the reviewer’s comments. We believe the suggestions and corrections were very apt and would welcome further suggestions. We have also professionally edited this manuscript. All the authors have contributed equally towards the preparation of the manuscript and have no financial or proprietary interest in the products used in the study. We also declare that this article has not been published previously or is under review with any other journal. a) All acknowledgments and financial disclosures/funding information is included in the manuscript. We would like to clarify that this acknowledgment is for the research foundation that supports all healthcare-related studies at the institute. This does not entail funding from the foundation. This study did not receive any funding from any agency or organization. b) All data have been given in the manuscript with additional patient-identifying information that may be shared after consent upon request. We have also made available a minimal dataset along with all relevant data that has already been shared in the supplemental data. Thanking you Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing our previous comments. The paper has made significant progress, but still requires some minor editing. Methods "student-t test" should be Student's t-test. Results There is a line where you need a space between '6' and 'months'. "Hyphema was seen in 4 eyes that resolved spontaneous." Spontaneous should be edited to spontaneously. You switch between writing numbers numerically and spelling them out, please pick a format for consistency. Discussion There are some sentences that could use minor editing. "The Kahook dual blade (KDB) goniotomy procedure has similar efficacy similar to other MIGS or ab-externo goniotomy in open-angle glaucoma, an2mediciations d primary congenital glaucoma [3-5,17,18]." Please revise here Answers: We thank for the exhaustive review of important typos and we really feel sorry for errors like Student’s t test which we feel was not appropriate. We have corrected this and other typo errors. We would be ready to correct any other typos if any found still in the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: Authors completed all revisions and looks good. Grammar changes were made, and figures are clearer with clear labels. Answer: we thank the reviewer for the encouraging words and believe that the follow up of this paper may change the way clinician scientists look at the tissue in glaucoma. 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 project targets an interesting question and provides new insight into the field. It would benefit from more measured variables such as follow-up on post-op visual fields and visual acuities if possible. The provided data on rates of complications does seem to suggest that this study merits larger follow-up studies to confirm your findings. You should add the specific software and packages you used to perform your statistics. Answer: We thank the reviewer for the encouragement of our work. The reviewer is very correct and bang on the actual benefits of any surgical procedure for glaucoma being the preservation of long-term visual function. This is exactly the reason why we are now following the patients with visual fields in a separate longitudinal study comparing MIT with trabeculectomy and GATT. The visual fields are usually done on an annual basis in India which is why we did not feel adding a 6months visual field data, would be informative with regards to the long-term visual field progression rates with each surgical procedure. We definitely will update the reviewers and readers on the long-term results in our future papers or even on a personal request. We apologize for not mentioning the software used for analysis in this study. We have now added this information, as suggested. Reviewer #2: 1) Generally, I believe that the manuscript was well-written, clear, organized, and concise. I do not have much experience in statistical analysis so I am unable to comment on this matter, but from what I see, the tables, figures, and descriptions presented in the manuscript were clear and easily understandable. However, I think it may be more clear if the figures were located in the results section for easy reference (unless they are being considered as supplemental tables). If not placed in the results section, it would be easier to understand if legends were placed directly below the figures and tables. Answers: We are very happy with the reviewer’s comments and pleased to share all the results of this new technique and any results of our future studies on this procedure on even a personal request. We would like to clarify that have made the figures separately available and not in the word document since adding them to the document decreases their resolution which is very crucial for understanding this procedure correctly. Also, the format of the manuscript is as per Plos One requirements which require files to be submitted separately with legends as per Plos One author instructions. 2) There were a few grammatical/punctuational issues present, including: Abstract: "1day-1month" -> insert spaces to "1 day-1 month" Materials & Methods: "LV prasad eye institute" -> capitalize to "LV Prasad Eye Institute" "followed up at 1 week, 4 weeks, 6months" -> insert space to "6 months" Discussion: "increasing wave of MIGS procedures in glaucoma management is understandable They" -> insert period to "is understandable. They" "The Kahook dual blade (KDB) goniotomy procedure is has similar efficacy to other" -> reword to "goniotomy procedure has a similar efficacy to other" Table 2: "2mediciations" -> spelling error + insert space to "2 medications" 3) In both figures 1 and 3, the letters corresponding to specific to each image (A, B, C, etc.) could be larger and more clear to the reader. The letters seem to be a bit small and difficult to locate. Overall, this is an exciting finding and authors did a great job with presentation of results and explaining details concisely. Some improvements to the value of this Answer: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions and all typos have been corrected in the revised manuscript. We have also made the letters in the figures bigger for easy visibility, as suggested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLos one comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286020.r005
7 May 2023 Decision Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor ‘Microincisional trabeculectomy for glaucoma” PONE-D-23-01259R2 Dear Dr. Rao, 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, Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286020.r006
Formally Accepted
12 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor PONE-D-23-01259R2 ‘Microincisional trabeculectomy for glaucoma” Dear Dr. Rao: 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. Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286020.r007

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 .