Application of a text mining method in navigation and communication for enhancing maritime safety

Paulina Hatłas-Sowińska; Leszek Misztal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299582

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 7, 2023
24 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Sheraz Aslam, Editor PONE-D-23-28679Application of a text mining methods in navigation and communication for enhancing maritime safety.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hatłas-Sowińska, 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 Dec 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, Sheraz Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please consider the comments given by two reviewers in order to consider it for the next round. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No 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: Dear Author(s), Topic of the article is interesting. However, following comments should be addressed prior to further processing of the article. 1) Refer to whole article: Similarity is very high i.e. 32% 2) Refer to whole article: Too many formatting issues. 3) Refer to whole article: Authors have claimed that auto generated ontology will lead to safe sea communication. What do they think about machine error? 4) Refer to whole article: Language grammars are usually very complicated. Which language is targeted by the authors and how do they address grammar issue which may lead to communication of false signal? 5) Refer to Whole article: Scope of this study seems limited as the proposed model focuses on a single language. What about communication across different languages? 6) Refer to figure 2 & 3: Article is written in English however another language is used in figures. 7) Refer to sub-section 1.2.3: Authors need to include a flow chart for easier understanding of the process to the novice reader. 8) Refer to all figures: Figures quality is very low. 9) Refer to table 2: Content is replicated in table 2 and figure 5. Further, most of the references are very old. No reference from 2023. Authors need to include recent references. Good luck. Reviewer #2: The manuscript introduces an intriguing model for the translation of natural language into ontology and vice versa within the context of an autonomous navigation system for sea-going vessels. The authors aim to address the challenges associated with the oral communication of navigational information. The identified drawbacks of oral communication, including semantic decoding issues, polarization of extreme viewpoints, labeling problems, confusion between facts and conclusions, and static judgments, are well-highlighted.The topic is highly interesting and addresses a relevant issue in navigational communication. Areas for Improvement: 1. The manuscript's formatting is subpar and does not adhere to standard conventions. Clear and organized presentation is crucial for effective communication of research findings. 2. Several important figures lack clarity, and their formats are not in accordance with the required standards. Clear and well-presented visuals are essential for readers to grasp the key concepts and findings. 3. The simulation validation process in the manuscript is deemed too simplistic. In real maritime communication scenarios, numerous pronunciation and technical issues are prevalent, yet these challenges are not adequately reflected in the simulated settings. A more comprehensive simulation that mimics the complexities of actual maritime communication should be considered. The manuscript requires substantial revision, focusing on improving its formatting, enhancing the clarity of figures, and conducting a more realistic simulation validation. Addressing these issues will significantly enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Syed Muhammad Mohsin 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review comments - Authors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299582.r001
Revision 1
13 Nov 2023 Author Response Dear Reviewers, thank you very much for your thorough substantive assessment and editorial of our article. Thank you for your positive opinions as well as the critical comments. They constitute important tips to improve the quality of our research work. Below we provide answers to the questions asked and responses to the comments included in the review. 1) Refer to whole article: Similarity is very high i.e. 32% This article is a continuation of research on automatic communication in maritime transport. The authors continue their original research topic. There is little similarity between the activities in the studies. But this article introduces something new - the text mining method 2) Refer to whole article: Too many formatting issues. Thank you for this attention. The article has been corrected 3) Refer to whole article: Authors have claimed that auto generated ontology will lead to safe sea communication. What do they think about machine error? The phrase "machine error" can be understood as communication errors, user errors, calculation errors. The proposed communication model takes into account the occurrence of the mentioned errors. The authors state that machine errors may occur. Occurring in unusual, unpredictable and typical situations. These errors can come in two forms. The first one is – machine and computational errors. The second one is for processing errors: errors regarding data or numerical quantities. With current research, the explanation for the above errors is non-existent. However, the authors do not deny that this is impossible. 4) Refer to whole article: Language grammars are usually very complicated. Which language is targeted by the authors and how do they address grammar issue which may lead to communication of false signal? The analysis of maritime case law indicates that in the event of a lack of connection between a voice call and a second call, this was one of the basic charges against the ships that took part in the occurrence. Decision errors may be caused by failure to initiate voice communication, its effects, or misunderstanding of the information conveyed in this way. These errors may be related to stress, which in turn affects the use of mental control and personal safety, self-assessment scores and situational awareness, disturbance of characteristic features, prolongation of decision duration. Errors may also be missing when it comes to using the English language. Disadvantages are determined in an oral form, including: problems with decoding the message at the semantic level, polarization (tendency to express extreme opinions), labeling (noticing problems by naming them, rather than analyzing them), mixing facts and occurrence as well as static assessment ( i.e. lack of verification of opinions regarding changes in elements of reality). The primary task of navigation is to ensure safe navigation by avoiding dangers during a sea voyage. The goal of establishing direct communication between ships and automating communication processes can reduce wrong decisions and, as a result, wrong actions resulting in maritime accidents. This mainly concerns dangerous situations requiring decisive action to avoid a collision, in particular excessive approach situations (a situation in which avoiding a collision requires concerted action by the navigators of the meeting ships). Currently, communication at sea is based on conventional requirements regarding ship equipment and crew training. At the level of the international convention, rules for the law of the sea route (COLREGs) have also been established. Detailed communication procedures are specified in the International Radio Regulations issued by the ITU (International Telecommunication Union). However, the communication process itself requires a broad analysis of the situation based on existing procedures, as well as ship equipment and systems. The MPDM regulations are designed to safely conduct maneuvers, e.g. passing, overtaking, and especially anti-collision maneuvers - without the use of voice and/or radio-electronic communication. Maneuvering and warning signals (light and sound) are permitted for ships that are mutually visible. However, ambiguities and discrepancies in the interpretation of terms such as "safe distance", "early enough", "change course to the right" or the interpretation of the meeting situation (e.g. overtaking or crossing courses), introduced the practice of correspondence, most often by phone, between navigators meeting ships. The communication process is divided into individual elements: the sender, i.e. the initiator, the recipient and the message. The person initiating communication performs coding, i.e. transforming thoughts into words that he thinks will be understandable to the recipient, thus creating a message. Then comes the communication channel, i.e. the way in which the content is to be conveyed. The message reaches the said recipient. Decoding, i.e. the interpretation of the received information, depends on its perceptual capabilities. In such a situation, a problem arises - the communication process understood in the field of maritime transport must be precisely defined. Its main task is to convey the message from the sender in such a way that it is clearly understood by the recipient. A large amount of information and the diversity of its types and scopes result in the need to process, integrate and select it. And most importantly – a clear form and interpretation. An example of ambiguity that a navigator may understand in different ways is: heave up the line/send heaving line. The article presents sample dialogues in scenarios and the recording of messages in ontological notation - in English. The reason is that English is considered the basic language in maritime navigation. There are current communication system procedures recommended by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), but they are complicated and difficult to assimilate by operators. The current state of knowledge confirms that all previous research in the field of maritime transport does not indicate a clear and working communication system based on ontology. The use of ontology and the beginning of operating on semantic models contributes to obtaining new possibilities related to the collection and processing of information. 5) Refer to Whole article: Scope of this study seems limited as the proposed model focuses on a single language. What about communication across different languages? Due to maritime law, which requires communication in English, the authors deal only with this language. 6) Refer to figure 2 & 3: Article is written in English however another language is used in figures. Thank you for this attention. The drawings have been corrected 7) Refer to sub-section 1.2.3: Authors need to include a flow chart for easier understanding of the process to the novice reader. Thank you for your attention. We added information about the process in the loop method 8) Refer to all figures: Figures quality is very low. Thank you for your attention. The drawings have been corrected 9) Refer to table 2: Content is replicated in table 2 and figure 5. Further, most of the references are very old. No reference from 2023. Authors need to include recent references. Thank you for your attention. The drawings and tabels have been corrected The authors use the Statistical Yearbook of Maritime Economy 2022. The provided data was included in the article. In January 20234 - data from 2022 will be available. This chapter contains information on accidents at sea to ships of Polish nationality, and marine salvage. 2. Data on accidents at sea cover ships of either Polish or non-Polish nationality when the incident or accident at sea occurred in Polish internal waters or Polish territorial sea. Passenger ro-ro ferries or highspeed passenger ships are also included when the incident or accident occurred outside the internal waters or territorial sea of the EU member state provided that the last port of call of that ship was a Polish Republic's seaport. In addition these statistics cover ships of gross tonnage below 50, i.e. fishing boats, yachts or tugs Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299582.r002
5 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Sheraz Aslam, Editor PONE-D-23-28679R1Zastosowanie metod eksploracji tekstu w nawigacji i łączności dla poprawy bezpieczeństwa morskiego.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hatłas-Sowińska, 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 revise empirical study as suggested by Reviewer 2 and resubmit the revised copy. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 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, Sheraz Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Since Reviewer 2 is not satisfied related to empirical study, "I still have reservations regarding the empirical validation of the method of this study". Please consider empirical validation again. [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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Author(s), My comments are satisfactorily addressed in the revised version. I have no more comments. Good luck. Reviewer #2: Although the revised manuscript has addressed most of the questions raised in the initial review and made appropriate adjustments to the text. However, I still have reservations regarding the empirical validation of the method of this study. While authors have validated your method in three specific encounter situations, I believe that this may not sufficiently demonstrate its applicability and effectiveness across a broader range of real-world scenarios. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Syed Muhammad Mohsin 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review comments - Authors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299582.r003
Revision 2
26 Jan 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your further comments to our article. To ensure the quality of our research work is as good as possible, we provide the answer to the question below. Data validation is a solution that uses research with the efficiency of empirical data. We try to ensure that the data of the congregations in our research are thorough and detailed. Validation is important because if it is false or incomplete, data may be exposed and incorrect decisions may be made. Proposed models for controlling commands from the captain's bridge to the autonomous system and automatically launched using empirical data from the presented test scenarios. Due to the operation of the first model - the article as a concept added to semi-autonomous maritime communication. The target models will be tested based on a significant data set, where: - for the first model, the input data will be a set of sequences of events in the ontology, while the output will be sentences in a natural language; - for the second model, the input will be commands in a natural language, and the output will be a sequence of events in the ontology. The test method will use developed models for each pair of elements from the set, where the input to the model will be input data, and the generated output data from the models will be compared with the collected output data (correct data). In this way, it will be possible to compare the correctness of the results and determine the accuracy coefficients of the method. Work on the proposed models is aimed at achieving the highest possible accuracy based on the collected data set. Data analysis software is an indispensable tool in empirical research. The authors plan to conduct advanced statistical analyses, which will enable a better understanding of the collected data and drawing accurate conclusions. This is the direction of further research work by the authors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299582.r004
13 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Sheraz Aslam, Editor Application of a text mining methods in navigation and communication for enhancing maritime safety PONE-D-23-28679R2 Dear Dr. Hatłas-Sowińska, 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, Sheraz Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299582.r005
Formally Accepted
11 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sheraz Aslam, Editor PONE-D-23-28679R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hatłas-Sowińska, 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. Sheraz Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299582.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 .