The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological research

Jolanta Starosta; Patrycja Kiszka; Paulina Daria Szyszka; Sylwia Starzec; Paweł Strojny

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299819

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 6, 2023
2 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Patrick Charland, Editor PONE-D-23-27687The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological researchPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kiszka, 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 17 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, Patrick Charland Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr Kiszka, the two reviewers have made their decision and changes are requested in your paper (see below). In addition, I invite you to review the submission guidelines and particularly the reference style section: PlosOne requires references in Vancouver format. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines [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: N/A ****** 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: This nicely written manuscript aims to present a systematic review of the available English or Polish literature on the classification of video game genres in the context of psychological research with the rapid evolution of the gaming market, based on a systematic search of 4 databases(ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Scopus and PubMed ) Authors propose a new classification of video game genres based on the review of 62 relevant papers and advocate a more detailed understanding by focusing on specific gaming mechanics, and thus introduce the innovative concept of utilizing community-based tags, such as Steam tags, as an alternative to genres in psychological research. Authors should be commended for their efforts. Please consider the following: 1. Was the protocol for this systematic review preregistered( on any site like PROSPERO) or pre-published? Please provide details. 2. Detailed search strategy for at lease one database may be provided. 3. The methods section says "The first reviewer screened ScienceDirect and Taylor and Francis records, whereas the second reviewer focused on Scopus and PubMed records." Usually all databases are searched by two reviewers and articles are also selected by both of them, and any discrepancy is resolved by third reviewer. The manuscript is actually silent on whether screening and selection was done by two reviewers. 3. Reviewer #2: It is seen that the article titled "The Tangled Ways to Classify Games: A Systematic Review of How Games are Classified in Psychological Research" is an original study and touches on an important problem that exists in the literature. However, The following major revisions need to be fulfilled to publish the study. 1. I wonder why the researchers did not include the terms "digital game" and the adjacent "videogame" in their search strategies. Because although the term "video game" is predominantly preferred, we also encounter the use of "digital game" and "videogame" in the literature. This not only leads to the exclusion of studies that meet the criteria but also reduces the content validity of the research. For example, Is there any possibility that the study below was not encountered for this reason and could not be included in the manuscript? Because it seems, the videogames were categorized by their genres as well as traditional games in the study. "Yılmaz, E., Yel, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2022). Comparison of children's social problem-solving skills who play videogames and traditional games: A cross-cultural study. Computers & Education, 187, 104548. 2. It appears that the databases were searched separately by two different researchers and that a single researcher decided on the studies to be included. There is a problem here in terms of coder reliability. Each database should have been screened by at least two researchers in case of an oversight or indecision, and the procedure followed in case of disagreements should have been explained. 3. The researchers need to add not only years but also months to the period (i.e. January 2012 to December 2022 (inclusive)). 4. The results are given within a certain logical framework. However, it would be more systematic if these results were given within the research hypotheses/questions. 5. Table 1 presents information on the proportion of female participants as well as countries. However, while a detailed discussion addressing the female proportion was made in the discussion section, the same was not done for countries. In this case, I can not sure what the purpose of collecting and publishing data on countries was. 6. I believe the limitations of the manuscript should also have been expressed by the researchers. ****** 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: Dr Mohit Kumar Patralekh Reviewer #2: Yes: Eyüp Yılmaz ******** [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.0299819.r001
Revision 1
29 Dec 2023 Author Response RESPONSE TO THE EDITOR Dear Dr. Charland, Thank you for your review. We have made the necessary revisions to address the comments and corrections raised during the review process. Attached are the requested documents: Rebuttal letter labeled 'Response to Reviewers' Marked-up copy of the manuscript labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' Unmarked version of the revised manuscript labeled 'Manuscript' We are open to further revisions if needed and appreciate your guidance. The updated financial disclosure is included in the cover letter. Thank you again for your remarks. Best regards, Patrycja Kiszka on behalf of the authors RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 16 December 2023 Dear Dr Mohit Kumar Patralekh, I am writing this comment in response to the review and suggestions that I received on Novermber 2nd, 2023. All of the comments were used to make the manuscript more communicative and meaningful. We would like to thank you for your diligent and constructive review. Please find the revised version of the manuscript The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological research. I include the manuscript in marked version. In the following section you can find detailed comments for your suggestions. 1. Was the protocol for this systematic review preregistered( on any site like PROSPERO) or pre-published? Please provide details. According to PLOS One “Criteria for publication” and PRISMA guidelines, there is no information about obligation of registration. To the best of our knowledge, the preregistrations are recommended more for the research studies than to the reviews. Consequently, our systematic review was not preregistered. The information was added to the manuscript. 2. Detailed search strategy for at lease one database may be provided. The section of search strategy has been transformed to present detailed information about the selected databases, the filters applied regarding the subject, keywords and the selection process. Also described are the exclusion criteria, which previously only appeared on the PRISMA diagram. 3. The methods section says "The first reviewer screened ScienceDirect and Taylor and Francis records, whereas the second reviewer focused on Scopus and PubMed records." Usually all databases are searched by two reviewers and articles are also selected by both of them, and any discrepancy is resolved by third reviewer. The manuscript is actually silent on whether screening and selection was done by two reviewers. Thank you for a very significant comment. In order to eliminate potential bias of independent decision of selection, we conducted a cross-screening which meant re-screening the database results by another reviewer. As a consequence, the databases were screened twice, systematically and independently by two reviewers. In case of discrepancies, they were resolved through clarification and consensus. This information has been added to the method description in the search strategy section. We would like to inform you that we have updated the literature review for an additional year, extending the coverage from 2012-2022 to 2012-2023. This enhancement ensures that the review is as current as possible and will prove valuable to its audience. If further improvement is needed, I am at your disposal. With the best regards, Patrycja Kiszka on behalf of the authors RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 16 December 2023 Dear Prof Eyüp Yılmaz, I am writing this comment in response to the review and suggestions that I received on Novermber 2nd, 2023. All of the comments were used to make the manuscript more communicative and meaningful. We would like to thank you for your diligent and constructive review, and we also appreciate pointing out specific pieces of literature that we should have included. Please find the revised version of the manuscript The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological research. I include the manuscript in marked version. In the following section you can find detailed comments for your suggestions. 1. I wonder why the researchers did not include the terms "digital game" and the adjacent "videogame" in their search strategies. Because although the term "video game" is predominantly preferred, we also encounter the use of "digital game" and "videogame" in the literature. This not only leads to the exclusion of studies that meet the criteria but also reduces the content validity of the research. For example, Is there any possibility that the study below was not encountered for this reason and could not be included in the manuscript? Because it seems, the videogames were categorized by their genres as well as traditional games in the study. "Yılmaz, E., Yel, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2022). Comparison of children's social problem-solving skills who play videogames and traditional games: A cross-cultural study. Computers & Education, 187, 104548. In fact, the study (Yilmaz el al., 2022) was not included in the review because of the keyword “video games” with spacebar. According to your comment, for this reason we may have missed relevant studies. Therefore, we decided to conduct a complementary search with the following keywords: “video game genre” OR “video game classification” OR “video game categories” OR “videogame genre” OR “videogame classification” OR “videogame categories” OR “digital game genre” OR “digital game classification” OR “digital game categories”. Additionally, we agreed to expand the temporal frame of the search to include publications from 2023. By doing so, we maximize the chances that all relevant and up-to-date articles are included. 2. It appears that the databases were searched separately by two different researchers and that a single researcher decided on the studies to be included. There is a problem here in terms of coder reliability. Each database should have been screened by at least two researchers in case of an oversight or indecision, and the procedure followed in case of disagreements should have been explained. This note is similar with reviewer 1 and we found those very relevant. In order to eliminate potential bias of independent decision of selection, we conducted a cross-screening which meant re-screening the database results by another reviewer. As a consequence, the databases were screened twice, systematically and independently by two reviewers. In case of discrepancies, they were resolved through clarification and consensus. This information has been added to the method description in the search strategy section. 3. The researchers need to add not only years but also months to the period (i.e. January 2012 to December 2022 (inclusive)). We agree. We have completed the detailed information regarding the time range considered for the search. We would like to inform you that we have updated the literature review for an additional year, extending the coverage from 2012-2022 to 2012-2023. This enhancement ensures that the review is as current as possible and will prove valuable to its audience. This is stated in the first point of the inclusion criterion: “The articles were published between January 2012 and December 2023 (inclusively).” 4. The results are given within a certain logical framework. However, it would be more systematic if these results were given within the research hypotheses/questions. We have taken this suggestion into account through amendments. According to the aim of the study which includes capturing the most recent and the most prominent methods of classifying video game genres in empirical studies, we decided to move the section “Quality of creating game taxonomies” to the top of the results. Then, we provided the parts: ”General characteristics of taxonomies”, “One genre, multiple definitions”, “The multi-genre misunderstanding”, “Steam tags – different approach to game classification”. 5. Table 1 presents information on the proportion of female participants as well as countries. However, while a detailed discussion addressing the female proportion was made in the discussion section, the same was not done for countries. In this case, I can not sure what the purpose of collecting and publishing data on countries was. Indeed, with the large amount of information, we overlooked the discussion of the geographic coverage of the included studies. This section has been supplemented in the manuscript. 6. I believe the limitations of the manuscript should also have been expressed by the researchers. Thank you for the suggestion, we agree. We have added the "Limitations" section to our manuscript. If further improvement is needed, I am at your disposal. With the best regards, Patrycja Kiszka on behalf of the authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299819.r002
5 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Patrick Charland, Editor PONE-D-23-27687R1The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological researchPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kiszka, 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 Mar 21 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, Patrick Charland Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: I am pleased to observe that the majority of comments have been incorporated, and the reviewers have generally accepted most of the elements identified in the initial submission. There remain one or two minor points to clarify. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the format of your references needs to be revised to conform to the Vancouver style. Please see the references section in the submission guidelines at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines [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: N/A ****** 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: Thanks for the response and for revising the manuscript as per suggestions. Please check why it's suitable to mention the search period as 1full year (January 2023 to December 2023). Rather dates when the last search was performed may be mentioned. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Thank you for your meticulous handling of all correction. I think your manuscript is now publishable after a minor revision. It seem that in two papers (Yılmaz et al., 2022 a-b) "constant" variable which was obtained as a result of multiple regression analysis was considered as a videogame genre. The concept of "constant" should be removed from the game genres. Otherwise, it would be a big mistake to publish the manuscript as it is. All the best. ****** 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: Dr Mohit Kumar Patralekh Reviewer #2: Yes: Eyüp Yılmaz ******** [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.0299819.r003
Revision 2
14 Feb 2024 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 11 February 2024 Dear Dr Mohit Kumar Patralekh, I am writing this comment in response to the review and suggestions that I received on February 5th, 2024. We appreciate your feedback and suggestion regarding the mention of the search period in the manuscript. Upon reconsideration, we agree that it would be more appropriate to specify the dates when the last search was performed rather than stating a full year. We will make the necessary adjustments to accurately reflect the timing of the search process in the revised manuscript. Please find the revised version of the manuscript The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological research. I include the manuscript in marked version. If further improvement is needed, I am at your disposal. With the best regards, Patrycja Kiszka on behalf of the authors RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 11 February 2024 Dear Prof Eyüp Yılmaz, I am writing this comment in response to the review and suggestions that I received on February 5th, 2024. Thank you for your thorough review and acknowledgment of our efforts in addressing the corrections. Indeed, we concur with your observation. The oversight regarding the inclusion of the "constant" variable has been rectified, and both the manuscript and the supplementary materials have been amended accordingly. We appreciate your keen attention to detail, which has undoubtedly enhanced the quality and integrity of our work. Please find the revised version of the manuscript The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological research. I include the manuscript in marked version. If further improvement is needed, I am at your disposal. With the best regards, Patrycja Kiszka on behalf of the authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299819.r004
16 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Patrick Charland, Editor The tangled ways to classify games: A systematic review of how games are classified in psychological research PONE-D-23-27687R2 Dear Dr. Kiszka, 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, Patrick Charland Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299819.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Patrick Charland, Editor PONE-D-23-27687R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kiszka, 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. Patrick Charland Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299819.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 .