The allocation of carbon resources in marine capture fisheries

Guangliang Li; Weikun Zhang; Hailan Qiu; Chunlan Tan; Juanjuan Niu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293120

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 6, 2022
17 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Chaohai Shen, Editor PONE-D-22-30576Adjustment of carbon resource allocation in marine capture fisheries in the context of equity —— A new allocation method based on shadow pricesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, 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 Aug 31 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, Chaohai Shen 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 ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper addresses an important issue. The authors mainly presented their own interpretation of the findings without referring to any literature. How this innovation would’ helps to promote the matching of social values and resource utilization, corrects the profit-oriented social contradiction, and provides new ideas for the study of industrial layout and optimization of resource utilization in research and application in economics’ should further be critically analyzed with support of scientific literature. Reviewer #2: This paper, titled as “Adjustment of carbon resource allocation in marine capture fisheries in the context of equity”, aims to r takes social responsibility equity as the value goal orientation and constructs a resource allocation model to correct the unfair distribution of carbon resources in fishery, most of which have been constructed in the new town area by the provical government to alleviate the development pressure to carbon resources or industrial structure, focusing on the environment friendly green fishing mode. The topic is important and the methodologies used for analysis is quite interesting. However, the paper needs to clarify the following points, and major revision. The definition of main objects of this research should be clearly shown; Working hypothesis of this paper may need to be carefully explained. I agree the following conclusion However, I hesitate to endorse the conclusion that A new allocation method based on shadow prices and contributed to increase of carbon resource allocation , due to lack of backup data in this paper Reviewer #3: 1. Authors should sort out the abstract by stating the importance of the research question, the content of the study, and the novel conclusions and insights without repetitively summarizing ``Innovation’’. 2. In the introduction, I did not clearly see the importance and urgency of the research problem, the knowledge gaps with previous research, the challenges that still need to be addressed urgently, and authors’ contributions that have been made to address the challenges. 3. The review of relevant literature in this manuscript is very lacking and inadequate. 4. Figure 1 summarizes the decision-making process. What is the difference between this and the relevant literature? 5. Technical variables should depict the current technical level and ability, but can the number of technology upgrading institutions and technology upgrading funds truly reflect the technical level? Are these two indicators positively correlated with technical level? 6. The manuscript should be written in a more standardized way, especially the font of the text and the body of the figures should be consistent. 7. Comparing before and after resource adjustment, are the change in carbon resources for Seine net sector in Shanghai in line with reality? 8. Both the experiment in Section 4 and the corresponding analysis of the results were inadequate. 9. In the conclusion, the author should state the unique conclusions and put forward relevant insights and suggestions. Also, the author should state future research based on the main content. ****** 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 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.0293120.r001
Revision 1
31 Aug 2023 Author Response Reviewer 1's comments This paper addresses an important issue. The authors mainly presented their own interpretation of the findings without referring to any literature. How this innovation would’ helps to promote the matching of social values and resource utilization, corrects the profit-oriented social contradiction, and provides new ideas for the study of industrial layout and optimization of resource utilization in research and application in economics’ should further be critically analyzed with support of scientific literature. Thank you very much for reviewing this article. On behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank you. Reviewer 1#Reply1 This method was inspired after encountering the computational power limitation of DEA algorithm. Resource allocation is in pursuit of a particular goal, which adjustment process is extremely similar to the training of neural networks. Therefore, this paper adopts some of the ideas of neural network calculation process to assess the change of the result through the small change of the input, and finally gradually approximates the ideal value through the adjustment of the input elements.(Line 145) The innovation is that the steps of resource allocation in this paper are divided into four major steps, value assessment, optimization objective, difference between value assessment and objective, and optimization calculation. This allocation step is also easier to understand.(line 135-144) At the same time, this article has made the following changes: The author has made several adjustments to the subsequent analysis, including the addition of "5 Further discussion" section and Figures 4 to 6. These figures provide a detailed comparison of the changes before and after the allocation of carbon resources. The action mechanism of the algorithm is explained in Figure 1, and the main idea is thoroughly discussed in section "2 Theory". The method model primarily employs an iterative approach to continuously revise towards the desired goal. The economic implications of the results are discussed in section "5 Further discussion". Additionally, the future prospects for in-depth research are outlined in section "6 Summary and outlook". Location of the corresponding changes in the manuscript: line 378-675 Reviewer 1#Reply2 The author has added relevant references. This paper draws on some content of neural network algorithm, but not all of it. The derivation is given in the paper, and relevant references are added in the derivation part. Location of the corresponding changes in the manuscript: line 232;236;244；245;247;255 Reviewer 2's comments This paper, titled as “Adjustment of carbon resource allocation in marine capture fisheries in the context of equity”, aims to r takes social responsibility equity as the value goal orientation and constructs a resource allocation model to correct the unfair distribution of carbon resources in fishery, most of which have been constructed in the new town area by the provical government to alleviate the development pressure to carbon resources or industrial structure, focusing on the environment friendly green fishing mode. The topic is important and the methodologies used for analysis is quite interesting. However, the paper needs to clarify the following points, and major revision. The definition of main objects of this research should be clearly shown;Working hypothesis of this paper may need to be carefully explained. I agree the following conclusion.However, I hesitate to endorse the conclusion that A new allocation method based on shadow prices and contributed to increase of carbon resource allocation , due to lack of backup data in this paper Thank you very much for reviewing this article. On behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank you. Reviewer 2#Reply1 This paper has been improved according to the reviewer's opinions, adding a lot of content, and adding charts and explanations for this purpose. The research objectives of this paper are explained in lines 72-78. This study aims to achieve equitable and efficient carbon resource allocation for marine capture fisheries. (line 72-78) In Section 5, we discuss the significance and rationality of our research conclusions. We assume that technological progress is negligible, which leads to a short-term equilibrium rather than a long-term one.(line 558-602) Reviewer 2#Reply2 The data in this paper are supported by a clear explanation, and the data are cited.(line 192-194) The conclusion is consistent with the real policies. China's coastal provinces have stopped fuel subsidies for trawlers and promoted cleaner production methods. Specific facts can be found at: From 2020, the subsidy will no longer be given to fishing vessels with double wing and single bag trawling (double bottom trawling), single anchorage and single bag purse Seine. Link: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/64791738 https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2015-07/09/content_2894870.htm https://www.gdzwfw.gov.cn/portal/v2/affairs-public-detail?qzqdCode=A924E8C7F7761194E0530C3D10ACF992&deptCode=441024868 Reviewer 3's comments 1. Authors should sort out the abstract by stating the importance of the research question, the content of the study, and the novel conclusions and insights without repetitively summarizing ``Innovation”. 2. In the introduction, I did not clearly see the importance and urgency of the research problem, the knowledge gaps with previous research, the challenges that still need to be addressed urgently, and authors’ contributions that have been made to address the challenges. 3. The review of relevant literature in this manuscript is very lacking and inadequate. 4. Figure 1 summarizes the decision-making process. What is the difference between this and the relevant literature? 5. Technical variables should depict the current technical level and ability, but can the number of technology upgrading institutions and technology upgrading funds truly reflect the technical level? Are these two indicators positively correlated with technical level? 6. The manuscript should be written in a more standardized way, especially the font of the text and the body of the figures should be consistent. 7. Comparing before and after resource adjustment, are the change in carbon resources for Seine net sector in Shanghai in line with reality? 8. Both the experiment in Section 4 and the corresponding analysis of the results were inadequate. 9. In the conclusion, the author should state the unique conclusions and put forward relevant insights and suggestions. Also, the author should state future research based on the main content. Thank you very much for reviewing this article. On behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank you. Reviewer 3#Reply1 The abstract has been revised. Marine fishery carbon emissions play a significant role in agricultural carbon emissions, making resource allocation a crucial topic for the overall marine ecological protection. This paper evaluates the dynamic iteration method as a research approach with the factors of resource allocation consisting of value assessment, optimization objective, difference between value assessment and objective, and optimization calculation. The paper selects the shadow price from the Super-SBM model as the judgment function for the goal value, aiming for the fairness criterion. From an equity standpoint, the allocation of carbon resources in marine capture fisheries proves to be unreasonable. The fishery model exhibits an excessive supply of carbon resources, resulting in wastage, while the green fishery model faces a relatively limited supply, with a focus on energy conservation and environmental protection. To address this issue, this paper proposes a new method and discusses the corrective results. This result shows that the stabilization point achieved is a short-term equilibrium rather than a long-term one. By rectifying the social contradiction of profit-oriented approaches, this research provides a fresh perspective for economic studies and applications, particularly in industrial layout and resource utilization optimization.(line 24-39) Reviewer 3#Reply2 Marine carbon emission reduction has always been an important research topic. In the introduction, we revisit this topic and outline the following contents: the background of the problem, the related research on unfair resource allocation, the existing research on carbon resource allocation by scholars, and the discussion of the existing research and our new design scheme in this paper. (line 46-110) Reviewer 3#Reply3 This article rewrites the introduction.(line 46-110) Reviewer 3#Reply4 Figure 1 shows the steps for resource allocation. The innovation of this paper is that it divides the resource allocation process into four major steps: value assessment, optimization objective, difference between value assessment and objective, and optimization calculation. This method is clearer and more systematic than other studies of the same type. This step follows the decision-making process, which consists of setting goals, evaluating oneself, measuring the gap between oneself and the goals, and implementing improvement plans.(line 135-150) Reviewer 3#Reply5 Technology promotion agencies are essential for the production process, as they can facilitate the technological upgrading of the production end. This paper considers patents as a measure of technology, but patents are only theoretical and need to be transformed into social production by technology promotion organizations. Reviewer 3#Reply6 The author has made corrections. Reviewer 3#Reply7 Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the comparison before and after optimization. The purse seine work in Shanghai is consistent with the realistic conditions. This paper discusses and analyzes Shanghai and Tianjin. For the two municipalities directly under the central government, Shanghai and Tianjin have similar amounts of carbon resources. The fishery products in these two places have high market demand, mature consumer markets, and advanced production technologies. The proportion of production factors is more reasonable, so the two can maintain a constant state.(line 623-628) Reviewer 3#Reply8 A lot of content has been added and significant changes have been made to the analysis section. (line 378-602) Reviewer 3#Reply9 Thanks very much for the reviewer's comments, this part has been significantly modified.(line 604-672) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293120.r002
2 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Chaohai Shen, Editor PONE-D-22-30576R1The allocation of carbon resources in marine capture fisheriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Qiu, 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 Nov 16 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, Chaohai Shen 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Authors, Please address the comments from one reviewer. Thanks. Best, [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been revised. No new issues were found, and it is recommended that the journal be accepted . Reviewer #3: The author has made most of the modifications according to my opinion, but the presentation of Figure 4 is very unclear, which will not only devour the author's contribution and work but also affect the readers' perception of the whole article. The author should improve this figure. Moreover, the font size in the figure and part of the table is inconsistent, and some are too small, which affects the perception. In addition, the current presentation of Table 2 and Table 4 does not fit the margins, and the author should change the expression to make it more compliant with the specification. ****** 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 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.0293120.r003
Revision 2
5 Oct 2023 Author Response Reviewer1 Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. Reviewer2 Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. Reviewer3 Thank you very much for your comments. The paper has adjusted the tables2,tables4 and Figure 4. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to ReviewersR2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293120.r004
6 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Chaohai Shen, Editor The allocation of carbon resources in marine capture fisheries PONE-D-22-30576R2 Dear Dr. Qiu, 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, Chaohai Shen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293120.r005
Formally Accepted
6 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chaohai Shen, Editor PONE-D-22-30576R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Qiu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Chaohai Shen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293120.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 .