Magnesium supplementation alleviates drought damage during vegetative stage of soybean plants

Amanda Soares Santos; Davielson Silva Pinho; Alana Cavalcante da Silva; Ramilos Rodrigues de Brito; Julian Junio de Jesus Lacerda; Everaldo Moreira da Silva; Jennyfer Yara Nunes Batista; Bruno Sousa Figueiredo da Fonseca; Enéas Gomes-Filho; Stelamaris de Oliveira Paula-Marinho; Alexson Filgueiras Dutra; Marcos Renan Lima Leite; Alan Mario Zuffo; Francisco de Alcântara Neto; Jorge González Aguilera; José Antonio Rodríguez García; Pedro Arias Cubillas; Milko Raúl Rivera Campano; Alejandro Manuel Ecos Espino; Hebert Hernán Soto Gonzales; Rafael de Souza Miranda

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289018

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 24, 2023
6 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Ramachandran Srinivasan, Editor PONE-D-23-05527Magnesium supplementation alleviates drought damage during vegetative stage of soybean plantsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Miranda, 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 Jul 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, Ramachandran Srinivasan, 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Piauí (FAPEPI) under grant Edital PPP FAPEPI/MCT/CNPq/CT-INFRA n° 007/2018. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) under grant number 427219/2018-3." 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The authors are grateful for fellowship provided by Coodenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for A.S. Santos and for financial support provided by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Piauí (FAPEPI) under grant Edital PPP FAPEPI/MCT/CNPq/CT-INFRA n° 007/2018 and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) under grant number 427219/2018-3.." 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: "Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Piauí (FAPEPI) under grant Edital PPP FAPEPI/MCT/CNPq/CT-INFRA n° 007/2018. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) under grant number 427219/2018-3." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest." Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 7. We note that you have referenced (ie. Unpublished [page 10]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 8. 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: Dear Author, Carefully, revise the manuscript as suggested by Reviewer 1 and 2 and respond to reviewer queries in point by point separately as Response to reviewer Thanking you. [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: I Don't Know 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The current manuscript "Magnesium supplementation alleviates drought damage during vegetative stage of soybean plants" is an interesting study. I have a few recommendations which I believe might help to improve the current status of the manuscript and request the authors to consider them. 1. There are a few spelling errors in the manuscript. For ex. line number 84 "bioEstimulants" instead of "biostimulants". Please check the manuscript tp eliminate such errors. 2. I feel that the study would be strong if the introduction part provides some statistical information on the actual losses in soybean due to drought. Since the preliminary and current experiments are meticulous, it would be meaningful if the severity of drought stress particularly in soybean is explained in a real world scenario. 3. I am a bit confused with the data presented in Figures 1-3. I believe they are from the same dataset but presented in different aspects. Would just one figure not be enough to explain? I am sorry, I am unable to follow the authors point of view on the this. I am also unable to find the tables, which I am not sure of the reason for this. Reviewer #2: The authors present interesting data in "Magnesium supplementation alleviates drought damage during vegetative stage of soybean plant". Having said this, the current version of this manuscript is far from meeting the basic requirements, both in terms of form or scientific rigor in writing, of a scientific publication. At many times statements in the text are not supported by references, many reference are missing from the reference list, many faults in the way the Methods are reported, lacking information on the experiments conducted, lacking information on the Figures and the failure to relate these data to similar observation in the Discussion section. In particular the issues to be addressed are: 1. Please check the sentence in Line 61 & 62 which is not clear. 2) Rewrite the sentence in Line 87 & 88, "especially through activation of mechanisms for water retention in plant tissues" not clear. Provide a clear explanation. 3) Why the author have chosen drought treatments to be studied 28 days after sowing? 4) Are the results are applicable to the other plant species? 5) Do the authors have quantified the rate of protein synthesis? Because Mg influence the protein synthesis rate. 6) Have the authors carried out the experiment for root biomass? 7) Enzymes like ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), protein kinases, RNA polymerase, glutathione synthase, adenosine triphosphatases (ATPases), phosphatases, and carboxylases require Mg for activation. Does the author have observed any excess load of Mg, if so does it exhibited any negative impact ? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Parthiban Subramanian 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.0289018.r001
Revision 1
20 Jun 2023 Author Response We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editorial team for their comments that helped to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. All comments were considered, and the alterations were provided in the text tracked-changes. Once the text was altered, a proofreading was performed to meet all requirements appropriately. Please see the responses to reviewers’ comments below. Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. R1: The paper was completely revised to attend the PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. R2: We want to comment that no permission was required to access the experimental site. Thus, a brief statement was added in Methods section in order to meet the Journal Requirements. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. R3: The information was revised and provided appropriately. 4. 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. R4: We add the requested information in the cover letter in order to attend the Journal Requirements. 5. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. R5: We add the requested information in the cover letter in order to attend the Journal Requirements. 6. The information about Competing Interests should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. R6: We add the requested information in the cover letter in order to attend the Journal Requirements. 7. We note that you have referenced (ie. Unpublished [page 10]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie“Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors R7: We change the reference for Miranda et al. [Unpublished] as suggested. 8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. R8: The captions of Supporting Information were added at the end of manuscript and all citations were carefully revised in the text. Reviewer #1 1. “There are a few spelling errors in the manuscript. For ex. line number 84 "bioEstimulants" instead of "biostimulants". Please check the manuscript to eliminate such errors.” R9: We apologize for the mistakes. The manuscript was completely revised in order to remediate these errors. We thank for comments. 2. “I feel that the study would be strong if the introduction part provides some statistical information on the actual losses in soybean due to drought. Since the preliminary and current experiments are meticulous, it would be meaningful if the severity of drought stress particularly in soybean is explained in a real world scenario.” R10: We revise all introduction and include the requested information in order to attend the Reviewer suggestion. 3. The Reviewer said: “I am a bit confused with the data presented in Figures 1-3. I believe they are from the same dataset but presented in different aspects. Would just one figure not be enough to explain? I am sorry, I am unable to follow the authors point of view on the this.” R11: We understand the reviewer's doubt. We would like to comment that, as the research was carried out in a triple factorial, we have decided to present the data in an integrated view to facilitate the reader's understanding. Each figure (1, 2, and 3) presents a cluster analysis with mean comparison for one independent factor, using a reference for each figure. Figure 1 shows the results of drought treatments comparison within Mg levels and soybean genotypes using well-irrigated plants as reference. The figure 2 presents the results of Mg treatments comparison within drought levels and soybean genotypes using plants grown under recommended Mg as reference. Yet, figure 3 shows a comparison of soybean genotypes within Mg and drought treatments using the data from Bônus genotype as reference. All of these data were incorporated into tables 1, 2, and 3, including the absolute values and statistical results. Anyway, in order to clarify the Reviewer doubt, we have made the following changes in the current version of the paper: i) added an additional title to the caption of each figure; ii) included the ANOVA table as supplementary material (Supplementary S3 Table); and iii) inserted a paragraph (see lines 159 to 167 – clean version) in the results section explaining the approach used for presenting the results. However, we remain open to any further suggestions from the reviewers. Reviewer #2 The Reviewer said “Having said this, the current version of this manuscript is far from meeting the basic requirements, both in terms of form or scientific rigor in writing, of a scientific publication. At many times statements in the text are not supported by references, many reference are missing from the reference list, many faults in the way the Methods are reported, lacking information on the experiments conducted, lacking information on the Figures and the failure to relate these data to similar observation in the Discussion section.” R12: We do not understand this general comment. Anyway, we carefully revised all manuscript in order to find the raised mistakes (missing reference and information). Please see the alterations in the text. 1). “Please check the sentence in Line 61 & 62 which is not clear.” R13: This sentence and other portions of introduction were rewritten in order to attend the Reviewer suggestion. Please, see the paper with tracked changes. 2) “Rewrite the sentence in Line 87 & 88, "especially through activation of mechanisms for water retention in plant tissues" not clear. Provide a clear explanation” R14: The sentence was rewritten in order to attend the Reviewer suggestion: Our working hypothesis is that Mg supplementation triggers water stress tolerance in G. max through activation of mechanisms for maintenance of water content in plant tissues. 3) “Why the author have chosen drought treatments to be studied 28 days after sowing?” R15: In the current study, we try to investigate the implications of Mg supplementation during the vegetative stage of soybean plants. The time for drought imposition was defined to start at the V4 stage, based on observations from preliminary studies. In this case, the soybean plants in the field reached the V4 stage 28 days after sowing. Additionally, the sampling time was defined to be at the end of the vegetative stage, specifically at the beginning of the flowering stage (R1 stage), which coincided with 28 days after drought imposition (or 56 days after sowing). To address this uncertainty, we have revised certain sentences in the Materials and Methods section: Lines 101-101 (clean version): Drought treatments were applied soon after the soybean plants achieved the V4 stage, 28 days after sowing. Lines 117-118 (clean version): The plant material was harvested at 28 days after the imposition of drought treatments, before the reproductive stage. 4) “Are the results are applicable to the other plant species?” R16: We have understood the reviewer's question. The supplementation of Mg has been proven to be beneficial, depending on the genotype and species, as stated in our study. Therefore, the application of these results to other plant species should be approached with caution and based on scientific investigations. For instance, we have already completed trials using Mg supplementation for cowpea in both greenhouse and field environments, and the data are encouraging, highlighting its role in mitigating drought damage and enhancing stress tolerance, particularly in sensitive genotypes. Surprisingly, it appears that genotypes of plant species such as soybean and cowpea, which have intrinsic tolerance, do not respond to Mg treatments under drought conditions. Considering this, we can recommend Mg supplementation for cowpea and soybean under water restrictions, but we cannot recommend it for other crop species without conducting scientific investigations. 5) “Do the authors have quantified the rate of protein synthesis? Because Mg influence the protein synthesis rate.” R17: In the present study, our focus was to investigate the influence of Mg supplementation on the activation of drought tolerance, analyzing growth and key tolerance indicators. We would like to inform that we are just carrying out a new study to address biochemical investigations, including protein quantification, antioxidant enzymes, solute accumulation, and plant metabolome profiling. We understand the reviewer's comments, and while these suggestions will be incorporated into a future study. 6) “Have the authors carried out the experiment for root biomass?” R18: We appreciate the reviewer's question. In this study, we did not include an analysis of root biomass. In fact, we had harvested the roots from the experiments, but we decided to exclude this assay from the paper due to concerns regarding its reliability. By considering a field trial, during the process of harvesting the roots, a portion of them remained in the soil (due to breakage) and could not be fully collected, especially in the water deficit treatments. Additionally, some roots from neighboring plants were in contact and intertwined with each other. These factors collectively raised doubts about the reliability of the root biomass data, leading us to choose not to include it in the paper. 7) “Enzymes like ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), protein kinases, RNA polymerase, glutathione synthase, adenosine triphosphatases (ATPases), phosphatases, and carboxylases require Mg for activation. Does the author have observed any excess load of Mg, if so does it exhibited any negative impact?” R19: We appreciate the reviewer's comments and inquiries. Indeed, there was a higher accumulation of Mg in the plants supplemented with Mg, particularly observed in the M8808 genotype when subjected to drought. As mentioned in response R17, we did not include biochemical assays in the present article. We thank you for your comment, and these investigations will be taken into consideration for the new study that is currently underway. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289018.r002
10 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Ramachandran Srinivasan, Editor Magnesium supplementation alleviates drought damage during vegetative stage of soybean plants PONE-D-23-05527R1 Dear Dr. Rafael de Souza Miranda, 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, Ramachandran Srinivasan, 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Parthiban Subramanian Reviewer #2: Yes: Jeyapragash Danaraj ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289018.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ramachandran Srinivasan, Editor PONE-D-23-05527R1 Magnesium supplementation alleviates drought damage during vegetative stage of soybean plants Dear Dr. Miranda: 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. Ramachandran Srinivasan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289018.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 .