Physiological mechanisms of muscle strength and power are dependent on the years post obtaining peak height velocity in elite juniors rowers: A cross-sectional study

Paulo Francisco de Almeida-Neto; Ayrton Bruno de Morais Ferreira; Adam Baxter-Jones; Jason Azevedo de Medeiros; Luiz Felipe da Silva; Paulo Moreira Silva Dantas; Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco Cabral

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286687

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 26, 2023
30 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor PONE-D-23-05680Physiological mechanisms of muscle strength and power are dependent on the years post obtaining Peak Height Velocity in elite Juniors rowers?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Almeida-Neto, 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 May 14 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, Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D. 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. 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. 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. Additional Editor Comments: I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the reviewers' comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The research is interesting in principle. However, the manuscript is difficult to follow in parts. Especially the results are presented in an unclear way. Also the discussion seems to be a bit vague. This should definitely be revised. In addition, the visual abstract is not comprehensible in its current state. The methodology should also be revised: Were 100, 500, 2000 and 6000 tests completed on the same day? more informant about the maximal stress test is needed! please add reliability data for the concept 2 erg and testing procedure! Same for the strength testing procedure. How were the strength tests standardized? The results show that the body mass increases from recent to median to veteran. This must be taken into account in the power data. Eventually the differences found will disappear. In the figures, consistently indicate either watts or pace. Based on these points, I recommend a comprehensive revision of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: As per notes attached, Some adaptations in the introduction, such as better identification of the problem, and in the methodology, such as a better description of the sample size, are necessary. It should still be considered to improve the conclusions and update the theoretical framework. ****** 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: Felipe J. Aidar ******** [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: PONE-D-23-05680v1.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286687.r001
Revision 1
4 Apr 2023 Author Response Response to reviews Manuscript title: PONE-D-23-05680- Physiological mechanisms of muscle strength and power are dependent on the years post obtaining Peak Height Velocity in elite Juniors rowers? Reviewer #1: 1) Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The research is interesting in principle. However, the manuscript is difficult to follow in parts. Especially the results are presented in an unclear way. Also the discussion seems to be a bit vague. This should definitely be revised. Answer: We reviewed the results, they were reported as described by the study by Wagenmakers et al., (2018, DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7), the authors address how to use the Baysian approach. In addition, we present in the figures only those results worthy of post-hoc, as suggested by Kass & Raftery (1995, DOI: 10.2307/2291091). Regarding discussion, we stress that our study is the first to address the relationship of years after PHV attainment with muscle strength and power. Previous studies address the influence of PHV and other biological maturation events (bone age, sexual maturation, expected height as an adult, etc.). Only one study that looked at rowers from pre-puberty to post-puberty addressed that after all subjects reached sexual maturation completely, rowing athletes who reached sexual maturity at a younger chronological age continued to have advantages over those who reached sexual maturity at an older chronological age (DOI: 0.1111/j.1600-0838.2010. 01200.x), we cite this study in our discussion (line 328 to 338). In light of this, our discussion addressed the mechanisms involved with gains in muscular power and strength in relation to the characteristics of the stages of biological maturity, where the more mature the subject is the higher the levels of strength and muscular power. As pointed out in our introduction (line 94 to 96), when reaching full maturity, the differences in strength and muscle power should not be significant among mature athletes, but our study found that the advantages last until the age of 18! This may be justified because the body has had more time (biologically speaking) to adapt to the physiological changes resulting from the maturation process, we have inserted a brief topic in our discussion exposing this conjecture (line 381 to 389). 2) In addition, the visual abstract is not comprehensible in its current state. Answer: Upon the reviewer's report we adjusted the visual abstract as described by Ibrahim et al., (2017; DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002277). 3) The methodology should also be revised: Were 100, 500, 2000 and 6000 tests completed on the same day? Answer: We appreciate the reviewer's observation, there was a typo in the study design session, we have adjusted and identified the "washout" time between tests (line 144 to 151). 4) more informant about the maximal stress test is needed! please add reliability data for the concept 2 erg and testing procedure! Answer: Concept 2 is a valid device, we point out that the data are from the Brazilian rowing confederation as described in the manuscript (line 129 to 135 & 152 to 159), so we did not have access to the evaluations, only the final results, and we do not have test and retest data to infer reliability. However, we entered the standard error of the evaluations from the manuscript in a supplementary file (supplementary file 2). In addition, we point out that previously Smith & Hopkins (2012, Doi: https://doi.org/10.2165/11597230-000000000-00000), reported that well-trained rowers have a typical error in time performance of only ~0.5% between repeated 2000m attempts on this ergometer. Similarly, Almeida-Neto et al., (2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243157) found that for post-PHV maturing rowers, the rowing ergometer points to good reliability with performance in water (ICC = 0,897; IC 95% = [0,737; 0,962]). Therefore, it is reliable and appropriate to use the concept II to track changes in physiological performance and factors affecting it, and considering that the sample is of elite national-level athletes and that the evaluations were performed by trained assessors trained by the Brazilian Rowing Confederation, the results of our study are reliable. 5) Same for the strength testing procedure. How were the strength tests standardized? Answer: The strength tests were standardized according to the Brazilian Rowing Confederation, we inserted a supplementary file with the details of the 1RM evaluations (Supplementary file 1). 6) The results show that the body mass increases from recent to median to veteran. This must be taken into account in the power data. Eventually the differences found will disappear. In the figures, consistently indicate either watts or pace. Based on these points, I recommend a comprehensive revision of the manuscript. Answer: Thanks to the reviewer's remark, we have inserted analyses of the relative power (Watts/kg) (table 2), and only the differences for 100-m (male sex) remain (figure 1B). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer #2: General comments: As per notes attached, Some adaptations in the introduction, such as better identification of the problem, and in the methodology, such as a better description of the sample size, are necessary. It should still be considered to improve the conclusions and update the theoretical framework. 1) Title: Are presented satisfactorily. Answer: ok. 2) Abstract: Are presented satisfactorily. I suggest adding some absolute and statistical results to help visualize the work. Answer: We insert numerical results (Bayes Factor) in the results section of the summary (line 64 to 67). 3) Keywords: Please confirm that the keywords appear as descriptors in health sciences. Answer: We adjust the keywords as requested. 4) Introduction: It should initially present a more general approach, gradually address the problem (gap), and then present the objective. The problem must be better identified. Mentioning that PHV and its relationship to what the study proposes is still unclear would not be a problem. I suggest continuing with the statements for and against the aforementioned so that we can naturally trigger the objectives. Answer: We adjusted the introduction to expose the problem in a more appropriate way (line 98 a 108). 5) Methods: It should present the design of the study. A CONSORT or timeline should be presented in order to get a better view of the study design. Answer: Our study complies with the STROBE chekinlist for observational studies (line 165 to 167). 6) The sample should be better explained with the number of subjects presented initially and then present the inclusion and exclusion criteria. As it was determined that 235 junior rowers (171 men and 64 women) would be needed or sufficient. please clarify. Answer: We insert the description of the sample calculation in the methods (line 123 to 128). 7) Results: Are presented satisfactorily. Answer: ok. 8) Discussion: Are presented satisfactorily. Answer: ok. 9) Conclusion: Are presented satisfactorily. However, it would be necessary to present the practical applications of the results found. Answer: We insert the practical applicability’s in the conclusion (line 408 to 414). 10) References: Are presented satisfactorily. However, of the 45 references, only 15 are current and 30 have more than five years of publication. Please update the theoretical framework. Answer: We tried to update the references, but could not! we hope that the reviewer understands that the theme of the study has not been widely addressed in the literature. The only study similar to the theme was published in 2010 (DOI: 0.1111/j.1600-0838.2010. 01200.x), in relation to the studies about the rowing characteristics, muscle fiber types in children and about anaerobic and aerobic enzymes we cited the original studies, when we tried to update with current studies, they did not contemplate what we need to replace the reference. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviews PONE-D-23-05680v1.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286687.r002
15 May 2023 Decision Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor PONE-D-23-05680R1Physiological mechanisms of muscle strength and power are dependent on the years post obtaining Peak Height Velocity in elite Juniors rowers: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Almeida-Neto, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:Thank you for the new version of your paper. The authors must respond to the comments and requirements of reviewer one for the paper to be finally accepted. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 29 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, Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D. 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 #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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #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: Yes 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: Thank you for this revision. All of the points I raised have been adequately addressed. However, it is now the case that when the results are considered relative to mass, only the differences for 100m performance are relevant. Even when viewed in absolute terms, there is significant overlap in the results, including in the 100m test performances. This raises the question of why trainers and coaches need to consider peak height velocity/maturation at all. The results seem to show a strong overlap, suggesting that these factors may not be as relevant as previously thought. Overall, the interpretation of the results and the discussion should focus more on the implications of these findings for trainers and athletes. Why is it not sufficient to simply consider biological age? Combining biological age and mass, for example, could already explain a large portion of the variance in performance. These aspects should definitely be added or highlighted more prominently in the revised version. Reviewer #3: Dear authors, Congratulations for your work. Your revision has improved the quality of the document and it is now ready for acceptance. ****** 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 #3: 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.0286687.r003
Revision 2
16 May 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: Thank you for this revision. All of the points I raised have been adequately addressed. However, it is now the case that when the results are considered relative to mass, only the differences for 100m performance are relevant. Even when viewed in absolute terms, there is significant overlap in the results, including in the 100m test performances. This raises the question of why trainers and coaches need to consider peak height velocity/maturation at all. The results seem to show a strong overlap, suggesting that these factors may not be as relevant as previously thought. Overall, the interpretation of the results and the discussion should focus more on the implications of these findings for trainers and athletes. Why is it not sufficient to simply consider biological age? Combining biological age and mass, for example, could already explain a large portion of the variance in performance. These aspects should definitely be added or highlighted more prominently in the revised version. Answer: In the results section, in the description of Table 1, we address the difference in body weight between the groups (lines 256 to 258). In addition, in the discussion session we inserted a topic on “Biological maturation, body weight and performance in rowers” (lines 384 to 402). Finally, in the concluding section, we gave a suggestion of practical applicability aimed at nutritional intervention to increase body weight in recent-YPPHV athletes (lines 436 to 440). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer #3: Dear authors, congratulations for your work. Your revision has improved the quality of the document and it is now ready for acceptance. Answer: Thanks’. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: R2 - Responses to reviews PONE-D-23-05680v1.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286687.r004
22 May 2023 Decision Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor Physiological mechanisms of muscle strength and power are dependent on the years post obtaining Peak Height Velocity in elite Juniors rowers: A cross-sectional study PONE-D-23-05680R2 Dear Dr. Almeida-Neto, 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, Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Congratulations for your work!, I consider that your paper can be published in its current form. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286687.r005
Formally Accepted
26 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor PONE-D-23-05680R2 Physiological mechanisms of muscle strength and power are dependent on the years post obtaining Peak Height Velocity in elite Juniors rowers: A cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Almeida-Neto: 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. Javier Abián-Vicén Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286687.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .