An investigation into gender distributions in scholarly publications among dental faculty members in Iran

Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi; Erfan Shamsoddin; Lisa M. DeTora; Barbara E. Bierer; Perihan Elif Ekmekci; Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan; Ching Shan Lii; Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone; Francis P. Crawley

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300698

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 15, 2023
29 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor PONE-D-23-22007An Investigation into Gender Distributions in Scholarly Publications among Dental Faculty Members in IranPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sofi-Mahmudi, 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 Oct 13 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, Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, BDS, MPH, MDent, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper brings a very important and recent theme. Authors investigated gender differences in several scientometric indices among dental researchers in Iran. The manuscript is well written, results are solid and an appropriate discussion was written. After the reviewing the paper, my comments are listed below: Introduction - Very informative and well written. No suggestion for this section. Methods - Do you think that "observation study" is the most appropriate definition for a scientometric study? - Did you collect data about research funding and other financial support? How this could have impacted scientometrics? Results - It would be interesting to present names, positions and research area of the most prolific men and women Iranian authors. - It would also be relevant if some of these researchers were interviewed to talk about their careers showing what, in their opinion, were the most important aspects that contributed for the position they have achieved. Discussion Adequate ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300698.r001
Revision 1
30 Aug 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: This paper brings a very important and recent theme. Authors investigated gender differences in several scientometric indices among dental researchers in Iran. The manuscript is well written, results are solid and an appropriate discussion was written. After the reviewing the paper, my comments are listed below: Introduction - Very informative and well written. No suggestion for this section. Authors: Thanks for your kind comments. Methods - Do you think that "observation study" is the most appropriate definition for a scientometric study? Authors: Thanks for your comment. We agree with you. To prevent confusion with the typical definitions of “observational studies,” we changed the study design name to “cross-sectional scientometric.” Now it reads: “This was a cross-sectional scientometric study that reviewed the data of dental faculty members in Iran in 2020.” - Did you collect data about research funding and other financial support? How this could have impacted scientometrics? Authors: Thanks for your comment. The ISID database does not have such kind of data, and there is a reason for that: Dental faculty members in Iran (unlike countries with a free market) very rarely get industrial funding. Based on our experience (ASM and ES) at the national granting body of Iran (NIMAD), they even rarely apply for funding from such institutions. The oral and dental research in Iran is mainly unfunded or funded locally by the university. Therefore, we do not think seeking funding sources will add much value to the study. Results - It would be interesting to present names, positions and research area of the most prolific men and women Iranian authors. Authors: Thanks for your comment. We had already mentioned the top five men in the first sentence of the “Gender differences in specialties” subsection. However, we added the information about the top women, as follows: “The top women with the highest h-index had an overall rank of 15–20 (dental materials, pathology, orthodontics, and prosthodontics).” - It would also be relevant if some of these researchers were interviewed to talk about their careers showing what, in their opinion, were the most important aspects that contributed for the position they have achieved. Authors: We appreciate your comment, and we think this is a very interesting idea. We also have mentioned the next steps in the last sentence of the “Limitations” subsection in the Discussion. We will consider this as our next project about gender inequalities in Iran. Discussion Adequate Authors: Thanks for your kind comment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_PLOS ONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300698.r002
7 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor PONE-D-23-22007R1An Investigation into Gender Distributions in Scholarly Publications among Dental Faculty Members in IranPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sofi-Mahmudi, 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 22 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, Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, BDS, MPH, MDent, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear Authors Thank you for the submission. Your manuscript went through the rigorous review process and independent reviewers. Both recommend improvement of the manuscript as suggested in the documents. Kindky revise and resubmit. [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 #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #2: No ******** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: 1. Abstract - The background statement is an aim. - A more suitable introductory paragraph for the background is required. 2. Methods - Observationl study - should be more specific i.e., cross sectional. - Describe what 'Scopus outputs' are. - Variables * Is the 'name' variable related to the name of the faculty members? If so, does the actual name of the author have any bearing on the analysis and study outcomes? * 'Year of the first published Scopus indexed paper' - are papers which are not Scopus indexed not included in the study? If so, should this be stated as an exclusion criteria? - Data sourcing and collection steps could be more descriptive - keywords to source dental papers and faculty members; justification for sourcing only Scopus-indexed papers. Were staff categorised into full/part time staff? 3. Results - Overall perspective * 1st paragraph is repeated in second paragraph, line 4. * 2nd paragraph, line 4 : consider rephrasing to the opposite perspective e.g., over half of the women where in type 1 universities. Conversely, over half of the men were in type 2 universities. - Table 2: Is index 'working years' the same as index 'years publishing'? index 'years' publishing' is used in Table 1&3. - Section 'gender differences in specialities' * paragraph 1, line 3: Do the top faculty members for COH, dent mat, oral med etc also have the highest 'h-index, number of papers and citations' as described in the previous sentence or is their high performance in other indices? The sentence needs to be more clear. 4. Discussion - paragraph 1, line 9-11 may be better suited as a concluding statement. - paragraph 2, line 4 "...indicated by the fact that now a significantly higher percentage of new hirings are women as compared to men." requires a reference - paragraph 2, line 5-10 : gender equality paradox statement may require rephrasing. The concept speaks more to women in more democratic, equitable and developed countries being less likely to pursue STEM studies and careers. The deduction of the oppposite - women in non-egalitarian / inequatable countries are more likely to pursue careers in STEM - is not necessarily true. - parapgrpah 3 line 4-5: the MtoW representation seems to be contradictory to the 1st paragraph in Results. The sentence states that almost 50% (i,e., less than half; 517/1104=47%) of women are in type 2 universities and 48.4% of men are in type 1 universities. This means there are more women (53% (100%-43%)) in type 1 uni's and more men in type 2 uni's. The footnote in the Methods section states that only results of type 1 and 2 universities were considered. Gender distrubution between type 1&2 universities requires clarification. - paragraph 3 line 12: consider 'gender mainstreaming' instead of 'gender aware'. - paragraph 4 line 5 - 9 statement needs a reference/s. - paragrpah 5 - introduce paragraph as an illustration of the possible barriers and challenges that contribute to the gender distribution disparity in scholarly publications. - paragraph 5, line 9-10 - referencing style inconsistent - paragraph 6 line 13 - this may be incorrectly worded. Men did not publish nearly 55% more papers than women. Rather, men published 328 more papers than women, consequently contriubting to nearlyy 55% of the publication output by dental faculties. - paragraph 6 line 13 - should these calculations be accounted for in the results section? Typography and grammer - Desription belown figure 1: MtoW: Male-to-female ratio - change to male-to-women ratio. replace academic 'tier' with academic 'rank' - Background paragraph 3, line 9 : assessing instead of accessing - women instead of female (term consistency) ******** 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 #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 commentsr(Recovered).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300698.r003
Revision 2
1 Mar 2024 Author Response Reviewer #2: 1. Abstract - The background statement is an aim. - A more suitable introductory paragraph for the background is required. Authors: Thanks for your comment. We added a background sentence to the abstract. 2. Methods - Observationl study - should be more specific i.e., cross sectional. Authors: Thanks. Amended. - Describe what 'Scopus outputs' are. Authors: We have already described the Scopus outputs in the variables section. Those included “total number of papers, total number of citations, percentage of self-citation, h-index, g-index, citation per paper, number of papers in which the researcher was the first author, number of papers in which the researcher was the corresponding author, number of papers in which the researcher collaborated with international researchers, and year of the first published Scopus-indexed paper.” - Variables * Is the 'name' variable related to the name of the faculty members? If so, does the actual name of the author have any bearing on the analysis and study outcomes? Authors: The variable name includes the names of the faculty members. We used this variable to detect the gender of the faculties. * 'Year of the first published Scopus indexed paper' - are papers which are not Scopus indexed not included in the study? If so, should this be stated as an exclusion criteria? Authors: As we have mentioned in the first paragraph of the Methods, we only used the Scopus data. Therefore, it can be implied from the text that our focus is only on Scopus and not other sources such as Google Scholar. - Data sourcing and collection steps could be more descriptive - keywords to source dental papers and faculty members; justification for sourcing only Scopus-indexed papers. Were staff categorised into full/part time staff? Authors: Thanks for the comment. As indicated in the first paragraph of the Methods, the ISID is a formal database of the Ministry of Health of Iran. They have the records of all the faculty members, including those working in dental schools. Regarding using Scopus-indexed papers, it was the only option that we had and that database does not provide the records for other databases. Also, we do not have part-time dental faculties in Iran. They all are full-time. 3. Results - Overall perspective * 1st paragraph is repeated in second paragraph, line 4. Authors: Thanks for the comment. We fixed that problem. * 2nd paragraph, line 4 : consider rephrasing to the opposite perspective e.g., over half of the women where in type 1 universities. Conversely, over half of the men were in type 2 universities. Authors: Thanks for your comment. We have three university types in Iran, and therefore, we cannot say that most of the women were affiliated with Type 1 universities. The highest percentage of affiliations for genders are the ones that are mentioned in the text (men: Type 1, women: Type 2). - Table 2: Is index 'working years' the same as index 'years publishing'? index 'years' publishing' is used in Table 1&3. Authors: Thanks for your keen comment. We changed “Years publishing” to “Working years.” - Section 'gender differences in specialities' * paragraph 1, line 3: Do the top faculty members for COH, dent mat, oral med etc also have the highest 'h-index, number of papers and citations' as described in the previous sentence or is their high performance in other indices? The sentence needs to be more clear. Authors: Thanks for the comment. We added the criteria (just as described in the previous sentence). 4. Discussion - paragraph 1, line 9-11 may be better suited as a concluding statement. Authors: Thanks for your comment. We removed the sentence. The conclusion already had a similar sentence. - paragraph 2, line 4 "...indicated by the fact that now a significantly higher percentage of new hirings are women as compared to men." requires a reference Authors: Thanks for your comment. That sentence was based on the results of our study that the number of female faculty members is higher than men. We amended the sentence. - paragraph 2, line 5-10 : gender equality paradox statement may require rephrasing. The concept speaks more to women in more democratic, equitable and developed countries being less likely to pursue STEM studies and careers. The deduction of the oppposite - women in non-egalitarian / inequatable countries are more likely to pursue careers in STEM - is not necessarily true. Authors: Thanks for your keen comment. We rephrased the paragraph accordingly. - parapgrpah 3 line 4-5: the MtoW representation seems to be contradictory to the 1st paragraph in Results. The sentence states that almost 50% (i,e., less than half; 517/1104=47%) of women are in type 2 universities and 48.4% of men are in type 1 universities. This means there are more women (53% (100%-43%)) in type 1 uni's and more men in type 2 uni's. The footnote in the Methods section states that only results of type 1 and 2 universities were considered. Gender distrubution between type 1&2 universities requires clarification. Authors: Thanks for the comment. As mentioned in a previous comment (and also in the methods), we have three university types in Iran. In the footnote in the Methods we meant we included all the faculty members in the analyses but in the “Gender differences in university types” section, we only reported the results for type 1 and 2 universities. To avoid confusion, we removed the first sentence of the footnote. - paragraph 3 line 12: consider 'gender mainstreaming' instead of 'gender aware'. Authors: Thanks for your keen comment. Amended accordingly. - paragraph 4 line 5 - 9 statement needs a reference/s. Authors: Thanks for your comment. These statements are only our guesses for explaining “the high prevalence of female corresponding-author papers.” Therefore, we think we do not need any references for these sentences. - paragrpah 5 - introduce paragraph as an illustration of the possible barriers and challenges that contribute to the gender distribution disparity in scholarly publications. Authors: Thanks for your comment. We mentioned some of the barriers and challenges at the end of the paragraph. - paragraph 5, line 9-10 - referencing style inconsistent Authors: Thanks for your comment. Since it is not a reference rather a website to catch the data, we preferred to mention the web address in the text. - paragraph 6 line 13 - this may be incorrectly worded. Men did not publish nearly 55% more papers than women. Rather, men published 328 more papers than women, consequently contriubting to nearlyy 55% of the publication output by dental faculties. Authors: Thanks for your comment. We amended it accordingly. - paragraph 6 line 13 - should these calculations be accounted for in the results section? Authors: Thanks for the comments. Since it needs trivial calculations, we suppose that readers can do the calculations themselves. Typography and grammer - Desription belown figure 1: MtoW: Male-to-female ratio - change to male-to-women ratio. Authors: Thanks for your comment. Amended. replace academic 'tier' with academic 'rank' Authors: Thanks for your comment. Amended. - Background paragraph 3, line 9 : assessing instead of accessing Authors: Thanks for your comment. Amended. - women instead of female (term consistency) Authors: Thanks for your comment. Amended. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_PLOS ONE_rev2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300698.r004
5 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor An Investigation into Gender Distributions in Scholarly Publications among Dental Faculty Members in Iran PONE-D-23-22007R2 Dear Dr. Sofi-Mahmudi, 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, Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, BDS, MPH, MDent, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300698.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor PONE-D-23-22007R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sofi-Mahmudi, 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 Prof Yolanda Malele-Kolisa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300698.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 .