Towards improving online learning in physical education: Gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi students

Mohamed Frikha; Nourhen Mezghanni; Nesrine Chaâri; Noureddine Ben Said; Mohammed S. Alibrahim; Majed M. Alhumaid; Marwa M. Hassan; Raghad S. Alharbi; Mostafa S. Amira; Nasser Abouzeid

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297822

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 6, 2023
20 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Chao Gu, Editor PONE-D-23-28306Towards improving online physical education learning: gender differences and predictors associated to motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi studentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Frikha, 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 Jan 04 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, Chao Gu 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The authors thank all of the subjects who participated in this study. Special thanks are given to the faculty members and IT staff administrations at KFU, KSU, and TU for their help, as well as to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University for the financial support (GRANT 3961)." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The corresponding author Frikha Mohamed received a grant for the present study. GRANT 3961 Funder: The Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia https://www.kfu.edu.sa/en/Deans/Research/Pages/Home-new.aspx The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I would like to thank for the opportunity to review this manuscript written on highly important topic. Overall, the manuscript is written in well quality, I have only some suggestions to improve the quality of this manuscript. Title of the manuscript is informative and reads well. However, Authors could consider shortening the title of the manuscript. Abstract is well written; I have now further comments. Introduction is accurate and gives a great overview of the scientific background. Methods is clear and written in a detail. Authors provide sophisticated data analysis with very detailed results, great job! The discussion is also very well written with a lot of comparisons to previous work. My only concern is that Authors could provide more suggestions for future research. Future research could rely on specific classification system of motivational behaviours. For example, in a recent study by Ahmadi et al. (2023), a list of motivational and behaviour change techniques were proposed for educational context which could be used in future intervention studies as a basis for intervention content. Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Ryan, R. M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M., Dicke, T., Yeung, A., Ahmadi, M., Bartholomew, K., Chiu, T. K. F., Curran, T., Erturan, G., Flunger, B., Frederick, C., Froiland, J. M., González-Cutre, D., Haerens, L., . . . Lonsdale, C. (2023). A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000783 Reviewer #2: The manuscript deals with an interesting and contemporary issue. However, the title "Towards online physical education learning:" is confusing; suggested to change the title to "Towards online learning in physical education:". The introduction needs some improvements: it should highlight the research gap with previous studies. Besides, it should status the objective of conducting the binary logistic regression. The literature review and hypothesis sections are missing. The authors should provide definition of each variable, especially the PNS components in the literature review section, and explain its association with the research topic. The materials and methods sections are adequate. The results discussion needs to be further enhanced. It stressed an unequal samples t-test but didn't reveal whether equal or unequal variance was assumed. The discussion in section 3.3 didn't explain the parenthesis parameters (the meaning of small, medium and n square). In section 3.4, the authors elaborate on the comparison between group and gender without supporting results or tables. The "experience to OL" in Table 4 should clarified as "prior experience with OL". The exp (B) values reported in Table 6 were wrong. For positive beta, the exp (B) values should be greater than 1; for negative beta (AM), the exp (B) value should be less than 1. Discussion: suggested the authors associate the findings with research objectives. ****** 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.0297822.r001
Revision 1
28 Nov 2023 Author Response To Professor Chao Gu The Academic Editor 11/26/2023 PLOS ONE Dear Editor, All co-authors of the manuscript (ID: PONE-D-23-28306) entitled “Towards improving online learning in physical education: gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi students” and I, want to thank you for the consideration to our work. We agree with the comments advanced by the reviewers and believe that the requested rectifications can improve the quality of the manuscript. Here you find the point-by-point comments and answers. Answers point by point to the Editor and reviewers' comments (Manuscript PONE-D-23-28306) Answers to the Editor's questions: Editor questions answers 1 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Style requirements verified. Changes in the headings and tables were made. File naming verified. 2 We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. The funding information was removed from the acknowledgment section. Please insert this statement in the online submission form: Funding: This study was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (grant number GRANT3961). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 3 We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Data for the present are now published in Harvard Dataverse. Here is the DOI https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WQWLMU Answers to the reviewer 1 questions Reviewer 1 questions answers 1 The title of the manuscript is informative and reads well. However, Authors could consider shortening the title of the manuscript. To avoid any confusion in meaning, the title was reformed to "Towards improving online learning in physical education: gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi students". However, due to multiple study variables, its length was not reduced. 2 The authors could provide more suggestions for future research. Future research could rely on a specific classification system of motivational behaviors. A study perspective was added in relation to the findings of Ahmadi et al (2023). Lines 738-742: Moreover, the teachers’ in-class behavior is considered a key factor that influences students’ motivation [58]. Thus, promoting students' motivation during PE online learning according to an individualized specific classification system of teachers' motivational behaviors remains an interesting future research topic too [58]. Answers to the reviewer 2 questions Reviewer 2 questions answers 1 the title "Towards online physical education learning:" is confusing To avoid any confusion in meaning, the title was reformed to "Towards improving online learning in physical education: gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi students". 2 The introduction needs some improvements: it should highlight the research gap with previous studies. Besides, it should status the objective of conducting the binary logistic regression. The introduction was improved. Indeed a paragraph related to the Cultural and social characteristics of the Saudi population was added. (L95-102). The introduction was divided into three sections. Logistic regression is an extension of “regular” linear regression, used when the dependent variable, Y, is categorical (non-metric). The binary logistic regression, in studies in which the dependent variable is a “Yes/No” type variable. Typically we refer to the two categories of Y as “1” and “0,” so that they are represented numerically. This is the case of the GPA variable where students were divided into a high GPA group (3 < GPA ≤ 5); and a low GPA group (1 < GPA ≤ 3). 3 The literature review and hypothesis sections are missing. The authors should provide a definition of each variable, especially the PNS components in the literature review section, and explain its association with the research topic. The introduction was re-structured and the three study hypotheses were added at the end. 4 The results need to be further enhanced. It stressed an unequal samples t-test but did not reveal whether equal or unequal variance was assumed. Welch's t-test also known as the unequal variances t-test is used when you want to test whether the means of two populations are equal. This test is generally applied when there is a difference between the variations of two populations and also when their sample sizes are unequal, which corresponds to our study. Thus in the present study, equal variance was not assumed in all comparisons. Changes are made in the result section accordingly. 5 The discussion in section 3.3 didn't explain the parenthesis parameters (the meaning of small, medium, and n square). Explanation was added in the data analysis section. Partial eta squared is a way to measure the effect size. According to Cohen (1992) it is classified as small (0.1), medium (0.3), and large (> 0.5) 6 In section 3.4, the authors elaborate on the comparison between group and gender without supporting results or tables. The "experience to OL" in Table 4 should clarified as "prior experience with OL". The results presented (L314-350) are additional results to better understand the detected differences between variables and show the variation of PNS and motivation according to the GPA in males only and in females only. However, we do not opt to present a table in order to avoid repetitions. If the reviewer believes that is necessary we can add a table related to those results. 7 The exp (B) values reported in Table 6 were wrong. For positive beta, the exp (B) values should be greater than 1; for negative beta (AM), the exp (B) value should be less than 1. We fully agree with this remark. For negative B the Exp(B) should be less than 1 with is the case of amotivation variable. Indeed, by reviewing all the stat procedures and calculations, we discover mistakes in variable encoding generating errors in positive and negative beta values as well as in the Exp(B). However, the absolute beta values were correct. Results of the binary LR are fully presented in the result section (L385-469). 8 Discussion: suggested the authors associate the findings with research objectives. The discussion was revised and study limitations improved (L6955-698) (L739-742). The corresponding author Frikha Mohamed Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responce to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297822.r002
8 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Chao Gu, Editor PONE-D-23-28306R1Towards improving online learning in physical education: gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi studentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Frikha, 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 further explain in Tables 2, 3, and 4 what the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) correspond to in terms of values. Moreover, in the abstract, please narrate in a storytelling manner without including specific numerical details related to statistics. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 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, Chao Gu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #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: (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 ****** 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: Authors have done well job on revising the manuscript. I have no further comments. Great job and thank you! Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: 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.0297822.r003
Revision 2
11 Jan 2024 Author Response To Professor Chao Gu The Academic Editor 10/01/2024 PLOS ONE Dear Editor, All co-authors of the manuscript (ID: PONE-D-23-28306) entitled “Towards improving online learning in physical education: gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi students” and I, want to thank you for the consideration to our work. Here you find the point-by-point answers to your comments. Answers point by point to the Editor comments (Manuscript PONE-D-23-28306) (All changes in the manuscript are in red) Editor questions answers 1 Please further explain in Tables 2, 3, and 4 what the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) correspond to in terms of values. The 95% confidence interval defines a range of values that you can be 95% certain contains the population mean. In tables 2,3, and 4 the 95% confidence intervals correspond to the range of differences between means. Additional indications for CI were highlighted in the tables. 2 in the abstract, please narrate in a storytelling manner without including specific numerical details related to statistics. Abstract was revised and numerical details were removed. The corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297822.r004
15 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Chao Gu, Editor Towards improving online learning in physical education: gender differences and determinants of motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and academic achievement in Saudi students PONE-D-23-28306R2 Dear Dr. Frikha, 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, Chao Gu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297822.r005
Formally Accepted
28 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chao Gu, Editor PONE-D-23-28306R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Frikha, 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. Chao Gu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297822.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 .