Macroprudential policies and CO2 emissions: A comparative analysis of G7 and BRIC countries

Heng Luo; Fakarudin Kamarudin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296363

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 20, 2023
24 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim, Editor PONE-D-23-26694Macroprudential Policies and CO2 emissions: A Comparative Analysis of G7 and BRICS CountriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. LUO, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:Please access the reviewer's comments carefully. Authors should be consistent in the use of BRICS or BRIC. I will suggest you stick to the former. If you have to go by BRIC implying the omission of South Africa due to the 11 countries panel as sample study, please provide substantial justifications for such. The contributions should be strengthened more. There only two which are not substantial enough. For instance, that you are the first to conduct this study is not sufficient as contributions. How does this study add to the issues of CO2 escalation in the countries of study. How does your study relates and promotes of the SDGs? For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 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, Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim 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 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 title of this paper is "Macroprudential Policies and CO2 Emissions: A Comparative Analysis of G7 and BRICS Countries." It is a research paper, and I have several suggestions that the authors may consider to improve it: Abstract section: The language in the abstract is generally clear, but it can be further improved for coherence. I suggest adding research insights to the abstract. Introduction section: The structure is somewhat confusing, and the organization of information can be clearer. I recommend refining the division of paragraphs and the organization of content. Additionally, some sentences are overly long, so please ensure readability. The transition from citations to the literature review is not very clear. Literature Review section: 1.The structure is somewhat disorganized, and the connection between different studies and viewpoints is not very smooth. I suggest reorganizing paragraphs to present the themes and findings of previous research more clearly. 2.The literature review mentions various factors influencing CO2 emissions but does not provide specific research findings or controversies. The citation format should adhere to academic standards. 3.Some previous research conclusions are mentioned, but specific examples or data to support these conclusions are lacking. To increase credibility, you can cite actual results or data from studies. 4.The last sentence mentions the impact of macroprudential policies on CO2 emissions but does not explicitly connect this viewpoint to the research question. 5.The literature review content is limited; more comprehensive coverage is needed. Data and Methodology section: 1.There are significant language expression issues, please focus on revising them. 2.Additionally, when describing the reasons for selecting these countries, you can provide more explanation to illustrate why these countries were chosen (based on GDP rankings) and how they are relevant to the research question. 3.You can briefly explain why you chose the time period from 1992 to 2020 and why the MaPR_3 index requires the use of 3-year rolling data. 4.Mentioned the use of some country-level control variables, but did not provide detailed explanations for their roles or reasons. 5.The BASIC results section provides regression results but lacks sufficient explanation. 6.While mentioning the control variables (ICT, foreign direct investment, trade, GDP, CPI), there is not enough explanation to justify why these variables were chosen and their relationship with CO2 emissions. 7.The Quantile regression section mentions results at different percentiles but does not provide enough explanation to clarify why the results vary across different percentiles. Conclusion section: Overall, it is relatively clear, but when discussing future research directions, you can be more specific in your descriptions. ****** 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 ******** [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.0296363.r001
Revision 1
19 Oct 2023 Author Response PLOS ONE Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript (PONE-D-23-26694). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the editor’s and reviewer’s comments are as follows: Response to editor’s Comments: Point 1: Please access the reviewer's comments carefully. Authors should be consistent in the use of BRICS or BRIC. I will suggest you stick to the former. If you have to go by BRIC implying the omission of South Africa due to the 11 countries panel as sample study, please provide substantial justifications for such. Response 1: We greatly appreciate your comments and assure you that we will carefully address each one. It was our mistake to use BRICS, and we would like to correct it to BRIC. There are several reasons for this change. Firstly, economist Jim O'Neill has argued that South Africa does not belong in BRICS due to its relatively small economy (source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/24/south-africa-bric-developing-economy). Secondly, South Africa is the most recent member to join BRICS, having become a member in December 2010. Therefore, the sample period including South Africa as part of BRICS only covers 11 (2020-2010+1) out of 29(2020-1992+1) years. Additionally, South Africa accounts for only 1.8% of the total BRICS population (source: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11355). Additionally, we have rewritten factors that influence the sample selection in line73-line89 in the manuscript. Furthermore, in the work of Pata (2021), the link between renewable energy and ecological footprint is only examined in BRIC countries. Taking all of these factors into consideration, we have decided to use BRIC in our analysis. Point 2: The contributions should be strengthened more. There only two which are not substantial enough. For instance, that you are the first to conduct this study is not sufficient as contributions. How does this study add to the issues of CO2 escalation in the countries of study. How does your study relates and promotes of the SDGs? Response 2: We gratefully appreciate your comment. Regarding the contributions and how to add to the issues of CO2 escalation as well as relates and promotes of the SDGs, we have rewritten this part (reflected in line98-line118) and we added a moderating variable in our regression as another contribution in section 4.4(line411-line430) in the manuscript. Thanks for your valuable comments. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments: Point 1: Abstract section: The language in the abstract is generally clear, but it can be further improved for coherence. I suggest adding research insights to the abstract. Response 1: We appreciate your valuable comments. We have sent this paper for editing. According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have rewritten the content in line20-line33 in the manuscript. Point 2: Introduction section: The structure is somewhat confusing, and the organization of information can be clearer. I recommend refining the division of paragraphs and the organization of content. Additionally, some sentences are overly long, so please ensure readability. The transition from citations to the literature review is not very clear. Response 2: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have sent this paper for editing and reorganized the introduction section. The revised part is reflected in line38-line121.Thanks for your valuable comments Point 3.1: Literature Review section: The structure is somewhat disorganized, and the connection between different studies and viewpoints is not very smooth. I suggest reorganizing paragraphs to present the themes and findings of previous research more clearly. Response 3.1: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have reorganized the literature review section. The revised part is reflected in line124-line168.Thanks for your valuable comments. Point 3.2: Literature Review section: The literature review mentions various factors influencing CO2 emissions but does not provide specific research findings or controversies. The citation format should adhere to academic standards. Response 3.2: We greatly appreciate your comment. We have incorporated discussions regarding the controversies surrounding the impact of macroprudential policies on environmental quality in lines 134 to 166. The citation format has also been revised accordingly. Point 3.3: Literature Review section: Some previous research conclusions are mentioned, but specific examples or data to support these conclusions are lacking. To increase credibility, you can cite actual results or data from studies. Response 3.3: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have cited the results related to this part in lines 134 to 158. Point 3.4: Literature Review section: The last sentence mentions the impact of macroprudential policies on CO2 emissions but does not explicitly connect this viewpoint to the research question. Response 3.4: We greatly appreciate your comment. Macroprudential policies can influence environmental quality through their impact on credit or investment. Further details on this matter can be found in lines 134 to 158. Point 3.5: Literature Review section: The literature review content is limited; more comprehensive coverage is needed. Response 3.5: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have taken your suggestion into account and thoroughly revised the Literature Review section, addressing the points you raised. We would also like to note that despite our best efforts, we encountered a scarcity of relevant literature on this topic in Google Scholar. We have made sure to include the most pertinent sources available. We have rewritten this part in line123-line168. Point 4.1: Data and Methodology section: There are significant language expression issues, please focus on revising them. Response 4.1: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have sent this paper for editing already. Point 4.2: Data and Methodology section: Additionally, when describing the reasons for selecting these countries, you can provide more explanation to illustrate why these countries were chosen (based on GDP rankings) and how they are relevant to the research question. Response 4.2: We gratefully appreciate for your comment. We have added more contents for the sample selection in line73-line89. Point 4.3: Data and Methodology section: You can briefly explain why you chose the time period from 1992 to 2020 and why the MaPR_3 index requires the use of 3-year rolling data. Response 4.3: We gratefully appreciate for your comment. We add the expiations in line206-line210 for the first question and in line243-line256 for the second question. Point 4.4: Data and Methodology section: Mentioned the use of some country-level control variables, but did not provide detailed explanations for their roles or reasons. Response 4.4: We gratefully appreciate for your comment. We have added explanations for selecting these control variables in line267-line277. Point 4.5: Data and Methodology section: The BASIC results section provides regression results but lacks sufficient explanation. Response 4.5: It is really true as Reviewer suggested. We have added explanations to enhance the power of persuasion in line328-line354. Point 4.6: Data and Methodology section: While mentioning the control variables (ICT, foreign direct investment, trade, GDP, CPI), there is not enough explanation to justify why these variables were chosen and their relationship with CO2 emissions. Response 4.6: We appreciate for your valuable suggestions. Thus, we have added explanations for selecting these control variables in line267-line277. Point 4.7: Data and Methodology section: The Quantile regression section mentions results at different percentiles but does not provide enough explanation to clarify why the results vary across different percentiles. Response 4.7: A detailed explanation of the quantile regression result analysis is written in the section of “4.3. Quantile regression” and concluded in line379-line407. Thanks for your valuable comments. Point 5: Conclusion section: Overall, it is relatively clear, but when discussing future research directions, you can be more specific in your descriptions. Response 5: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have added future research in line525 -line534. Thanks for your valuable comments. Reference 1. Pata UK. Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renew Energy. 2021;173: 197–208. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.125 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296363.r002
24 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim, Editor PONE-D-23-26694R1Macroprudential policies and CO2 emissions: A comparative analysis of G7 and BRIC countriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. LUO, 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. Comments to author: As you can see your paper near acceptance, you are kindly advise to ensure diligence in doing the current revision. Take caution not to include details that will require more verification or a new review process as much as we encourage improvements on the manuscript at all time. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2024 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, Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: No ****** 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: Overall the revisions are good, but the language suggests further embellishment to improve the logic and readability of the whole text. ****** 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 ******** [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.0296363.r003
Revision 2
26 Nov 2023 Author Response PLOS ONE Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript (PONE-D-23-26694R1). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the editor’s and reviewer’s comments are as follows: Response to Reviewer 1 Comments: Point 1: Overall the revisions are good, but the language suggests further embellishment to improve the logic and readability of the whole text. Response 1: We appreciate your valuable comments. The paper has been submitted for further editing, and we have also restructured our paragraphs for clarity and coherence. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296363.r004
11 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim, Editor Macroprudential policies and CO2 emissions: A comparative analysis of G7 and BRIC countries PONE-D-23-26694R2 Dear Dr.Luo, 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, Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296363.r005
Formally Accepted
28 Dec 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim, Editor PONE-D-23-26694R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Luo, 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 Professor Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296363.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 .