Main drivers of regional value chains in CAFTA: Does trade facilitation matter?

Yang Yu; Zhouying Song

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289775

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 4, 2023
18 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Khalid Bashir, Editor PONE-D-23-06237Main drivers of regional value chains in CAFTA: Does trade facilitation matter?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Song, 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. ============================== Authors need to focus on:1) explaining the abbreviations upfront 2) discussion needs improvement. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 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, Muhammad Khalid Bashir, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences（XDA20010102） The polishing fee has been paid for this project, and the layout fee can be reim" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. 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. 5. We note that Figures 3 and 6 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3 and 6 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 6. 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: 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes 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: The authors worked on interesting research topic "Main drivers of regional value chain in CAFTA: Does trade facilitation matters". The article is acceptable after some minor revisions. The authors used many abbreviations - especially in abstract - some of them needs to be explained right from start of the article. Further, the article lacks the discussion. The section 5 of the article is "Conclusions and Discussion". In the subsections no discussion is found. The authors should discuss the results before the conclusion by adding separate section "discussion" which should be sufficient enough according to the size of the results. Reviewer #2: This study claims to make the three contributions to the international trade: (1) analysing the regional value chains (RVCs) from the perspective of value-added in trade at the bilateral level, (2) systematic analyses of the influences of facilitation factors on the value-added in trade, (3) spatial analysis (and mapping) to develop a descriptive understanding of the network of value-added in trade in CAFTA to show RVCs. To further improve the quality of the manuscript, the following suggestions are proposed: 1. In the abstract, also add that for what the abbreviation DVA stands 2. No doubt, the presentation of a diagrammatic conceptual framework is an elaborative contribution of the study. But it would increase the understand about the trade facilitating variables, if each of the different sections (A, B, C, D, and E) of the diagram (Fig.2) are a bit explained further. 3. There is need to add the theoretical underpinnings of the study as well, for example different models of trade, pertinent to this study, like, the gravity theory of international trade etc. 4. Fig.6 (depicting SNA results) is fade and does not clearly exhibit the trade related networking among the CAFTA countries. Similarly, there is no explanation about the figure in terms of what the figure is showing through dark and dim multicolored lines in different time periods. 5. Table 8 claims to exhibit QAP results of different TFI pillars’ impacts on three value-added in trade networks, whereas only the finding of two trade networks (DVA-INTrex and RDV networks) are there. 6. QAP analyses (QAP correlations and QAP regressions for the years 2010 and 2017) are done to investigate the influence of the trade facilitation factors on the intermediate goods trade. Those trade facilitation factors or pillars are: domestic business environment(bus), domestic and foreign market access (mar), customs efficiency (cus), availability and quality of transport infrastructure and services (inf), and information and communication technology (ict). But in the QAP regressions (as evident from the findings given in Table 8), why all the five different pillars of trade facilitation are not included. 7. The findings of the study are discussed least in comparison with the relevant previous literature 8. Policy implications (section 5.3 of the manuscript) could not be so specific, like stated in the lines 574 and 575: “promote e-commerce and paperless reform, strengthen the individual's Internet skill, eliminate high cost transactions and serious time delays, and reduce administrative corruption”. ****** 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: 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.0289775.r001
Revision 1
4 Jul 2023 Author Response Dear editors and reviewers, Thank you very much for these detailed and useful feedbacks on our paper. We have considered your comments and have incorporated almost all your suggestions in the revised version of our paper. We also have a detailed response to each comment in the below. In the paper, the changes made are highlighted in yellow. We feel that by revising our paper according to your constructive suggestions, the paper has been greatly improved. Comments from the editors and reviewers: - Referee 1- The authors worked on interesting research topic "Main drivers of regional value chain in CAFTA: Does trade facilitation matters". The article is acceptable after some minor revisions. First, the authors used many abbreviations - especially in abstract - some of them needs to be explained right from start of the article. Response: Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. We have supplemented our previous oversight by explaining abbreviations as China and ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA), domestic value added (DVA), returned added value (RDV), and domestic value added reexported to third country (DVA INTrex) in the abstract. Further, the article lacks the discussion. The section 5 of the article is "Conclusions and Discussion". In the subsections no discussion is found. The authors should discuss the results before the conclusion by adding separate section "discussion" which should be sufficient enough according to the size of the results. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. According to your and the second reviewer’s suggestion, we tried to add the discussion part of the results. We have added a discussion section-Section 4.3, in which we discussed the results and compared them with relevant previous literature. For example, we compared the research results of trade facilitation on DVA-D, DVA-INTrex, and RDV with previous literature (Line 576-589), and found out that the results showed consistency with previous literature. Moreover, we pointed out that this study further revealed that in regions like CAFTA where tariffs and trade barriers between internal countries are relatively low, the key factor affecting the value of DVA-INTrex and RDV is the business environment(bus). Please see the revised part in Section 4.3 (Line 590-598). - Referee 2- To further improve the quality of the manuscript, the following suggestions are proposed: 1. In the abstract, also add that for what the abbreviation DVA stands Response: Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. We have supplemented our previous oversight by explaining abbreviations as China and ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA), domestic value added (DVA), returned added value (RDV), and domestic value added reexported to third country (DVA INTrex) in the abstract. 2. No doubt, the presentation of a diagrammatic conceptual framework is an elaborative contribution of the study. But it would increase the understand about the trade facilitating variables, if each of the different sections (A, B, C, D, and E) of the diagram (Fig.2) are a bit explained further. Response: Thanks for your positive and valuable comments. We are very sorry for the confusing signs, as sections (A, B, C, D, and E) of the diagram (Fig.2) were not in a one-to-one correspondence to the explanation below. In the revised part, we have made it clear that the ABCDE in Figure 2 corresponds to market access& targets and trade barriers (mar), customers efficiency (cus), information and communication technology (ict), infrastructure construction (inf), and business environment (bus), respectively. We provided detailed explanations in Line 165-167. Furthermore, we also explained their specific connotations in Line 165, 173, 191, 208, 222 and 237. 3. There is need to add the theoretical underpinnings of the study as well, for example different models of trade, pertinent to this study, like, the gravity theory of international trade etc. Response: Thanks for your suggestions. In the revised part, we completed previous research in the academic community on the gravitational model of international trade before using Quadratic Assignment analysis. And we also explained why QAP analysis method was chosen in this article. (Line 324-339) 4. Fig.6 (depicting SNA results) is fade and does not clearly exhibit the trade related networking among the CAFTA countries. Similarly, there is no explanation about the figure in terms of what the figure is showing through dark and dim multicolored lines in different time periods. Response: Thanks for valuable comments. We’re sorry that the description of Figure 6 was unclear and lacked depth. In the revised part, we provided a detailed description of the flow of trade value added between countries and its profound significance in regional value chains and trade products in 2001, 2010, and 2016. And we would like to explain that, Fig.6a to 6i represent the three types of trade added value at three time nodes. Therefore, Fig.adg use the same legend, as well as Fig.beh and Fig.cfi, in order to make it easier to compare the changes in the value added of trade in different years. 5. Table 8 claims to exhibit QAP results of different TFI pillars’ impacts on three value-added in trade networks, whereas only the finding of two trade networks (DVA-INTrex and RDV networks) are there. Response: Thank you for pointing out this error. We have adjusted the name of Table 8 to QAP results of different TFI pillars' impacts on DVA-INTrex & RDV trade networks. (Line 573) 6. QAP analyses (QAP correlations and QAP regressions for the years 2010 and 2016) are done to investigate the influence of the trade facilitation factors on the intermediate goods trade. Those trade facilitation factors or pillars are: domestic business environment(bus), domestic and foreign market access (mar), customs efficiency (cus), availability and quality of transport infrastructure and services (inf), and information and communication technology (ict). But in the QAP regressions (as evident from the findings given in Table 8), why all the five different pillars of trade facilitation are not included. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. All the five different pillars of trade facilitation have been included in the QAP regression. In fact, the regression results showed that the domestic business environment (bus) had a significant impact on indirect and transferred value-added in 2010 and 2016. And customers efficiency (cus) and information and communication technology (ict) were significant in 2016. Availability and quality of transport infrastructure and services (inf) and domestic and foreign market access (mar) were not significant. The relevant results correspond to sum-bus, sum-mar, sum-cus, sum-inf, and sum-ict, respectively. And we explained the reason for not being significant in Line 570-572. 7. The findings of the study are discussed least in comparison with the relevant previous literature Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. According to your and the first reviewer’s suggestion, we tried to add the discussion part of the results. We have added a discussion section-Section 4.3, in which we discussed the results and compared them with relevant previous literature. For example, we compared the research results of trade facilitation on DVA-D, DVA-INTrex, and RDV with previous literature (Line 576-589), and found out that the results showed consistency with previous literature. Moreover, we pointed out that this study further revealed that in regions like CAFTA where tariffs and trade barriers between internal countries are relatively low, the key factor affecting the value of DVA-INTrex and RDV is the business environment. Please see the revised part in Section 4.3 (Line 590-598). 8. Policy implications (section 5.3 of the manuscript) could not be so specific, like stated in the lines 574 and 575: “promote e-commerce and paperless reform, strengthen the individual's Internet skill, eliminate high cost transactions and serious time delays, and reduce administrative corruption”. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have removed the original inappropriate statements and rewritten the policy implications section in Line 644-651. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_2ac79.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289775.r002
26 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Khalid Bashir, Editor Main drivers of regional value chains in CAFTA: Does trade facilitation matter? PONE-D-23-06237R1 Dear Dr. Song, 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, Muhammad Khalid Bashir, PhD 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: The authors have almost addressed all the comments given during the first review. The article is acceptable. Further, The discussion section has still room for improvement. According to the volume of the results, the authors could still detailed discussion. Reviewer #2: In response to the previously proposed suggestions, the authors have incorporated all the suggestions. Undoubtedly, the articles is suitable for publications in this current form. 1. Abstract is more comprehensive now 2. The diagram (Fig.2) is explained further. 3. Theoretical underpinnings of the study are improved 4. Fig.6 (depicting SNA results) is further explained 5. Table 8 is improved 6. In QAP analyses different pillars of trade facilitation have been included. 7. The findings of the study are better discussed in comparison with the relevant previous literature 8. Policy implications are improved ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289775.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Khalid Bashir, Editor PONE-D-23-06237R1 Main drivers of regional value chains in CAFTA: Does trade facilitation matter? Dear Dr. Song: 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. Muhammad Khalid Bashir Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289775.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 .