Dietary total antioxidant capacity of Moroccan Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients

Najia El Frakchi; Khaoula El Kinany; Marwa El Baldi; Younes Saoud; Karima El Rhazi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301805

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 11, 2023
10 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-23-22322Dietary Total Antioxidant Capacity of subjects with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Northern MoroccoPLOS ONE Dear Dr. EL FRAKCHI, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:Please kindly check the comments below. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. We noticed that this work is related to the following submission of yours currently under review: PONE-D-23-22223 (Association of dietary total antioxidant capacity to general and abdominal obesity in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Northern Morocco.) Upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to PLOS ONE or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article (as 'Other' file). Please also discuss the related submission in your cover letter. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts). We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. 4. 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. 5. 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: Please, reviewers have found your work very promising, and have provided useful comments. Kindly attend to them diligently, and provide sufficient details Look forward to your revised manuscript. [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: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscrciprt tilted "Dietary Total Antioxidant Capacity of subjects with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Northern Morocco" is an interesting investigation. In general, the work was methodical, well written and easy to follow. However, the authors should consider the following suggestions: 1. Edit to improve the quality of Figure 1 by showing the line axes and also remove the gridlines. 2. Include a section on Conclusion in the Manuscript 3. It would be helpful to have a control (perhaps non diabetic patient) in this investigation to compare. Reviewer #2: The present manuscript is a good attempt to document the dietary antioxidant intake through validated food frequency questionnaire using the documented international data of FRAP content of foods. The authors should clearly state the primary outcome and secondary outcome of the study. The sampling methodology and the research design needs to be clearly spelt out. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are not stated clearly. The statistical treatment to the antioxidant value data with nutrients and food groups is adequate but it does not states clearly discusses the connect between Dietary Antioxidant intake and Type 2 diabetes. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301805.r001
Revision 1
2 Feb 2024 Author Response Request: In response to your request, I would like to inform you that I have submitted simultaneously to PLOS ONE journal two original research articles that have been written as an independent paper for publication. The aforementioned manuscripts were the fruit of a survey carried out on the same clinic population of Moroccan patients with T2DM. Although the same methodology was used for data collection and assessment of dietary intake including dietary TAC assessment, the objective of each manuscript was different. In PONE-D-23-22322 manuscript, we aimed to bring to light new information about the daily intake of antioxidants among patients with T2DM on the basis of the dietary antioxidant index since it is the first study assessing dietary TAC in Moroccan country. The contribution of common food eaten in Morocco to total antioxidant capacity intake was also examined. In PONE-D-23-22223 manuscript, we aimed to explore the relationship between dietary TAC of these patients and obesity-related features regarding the importance of obesity in this clinic population as a common comorbidity of type 2 diabetes and one of the most modifiable risk factors for preventing other comorbid conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. We think so that it is desirable to publish separately the above works and not to present the full data within a single manuscript since each one deals with an objective. Also, that may help to provide more easily understandable information. We declare that the manuscript is original, has not been published before, and is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. Reviewer 1: The quality of Figure 1 was improved as recommended and conclusion section was included as well. Agreed. Further case-control designed investigation may be considered thereafter. Reviewer 2: I carefully rewrite the study design and population section with the intent to meet the aforementioned requirements. I have also added a short sentence to discuss the connect between Dietary Antioxidant intake and Type 2 diabetes through presented data on dietary intake according to dietary antioxidant capacity. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301805.r002
20 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-23-22322R1Dietary Total Antioxidant Capacity of subjects with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Northern MoroccoPLOS ONE Dear Dr. EL FRAKCHI, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:Please see comments below. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 05 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala 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: Please, authors kindly attend to the comments raised by a reviewer You will see that reviewers agree that your work is worthy of publication The editor also suggests the following: a) In the introduction, please squeeze in this information, before line 91, and some of it before line 98: 1) The food-health situation of the subregion where Morocco is situated , the foods that dominate the region culturally, the demographics of urban and rural areas within the subregion, and why it is reflective of the dietary situation found in Morrocco b) Please methods, start this section with new subsection captioned 'Schematic overview of field questionnaire study', which should comprise 4-5 sentences and supported by a flow diagram that shows us how you arranged the entire study. Sentence 1 should introduce the title of flow diagram, Sentence two should talk about the key stages, sentence 3 how it directly connects with the objective of the study, and sentence 4 and 5 show why the study is relevant, why such data analysis was employed, etc. Make sure this new subsection captures all the key stages of the methods c) I can see you separated your results and discussion. Please, kindly make effort to state (Refer to Table ?) or (Refer to Figure ?) in all the places where tables/figure captured in results and indicated in the discussion. So, all the tables and figure must be captured. Please, make sure to do this, to guide the readers. d) Please, in your conclusions, provide some recommendations for future work Look forward to your revised manuscript. Thanks very much :) [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All the desired and suggested changes are made. One observation in Table 2 about the unit for quantity of food intake especially green tea, black tea, instant coffee in gm per day is not acceptable and other foods consumed preferably should also be defined as number of serving per day which equate to the Total Antioxidant Content in the diet. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Jagmeet Madan ******** [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.0301805.r003
Revision 2
19 Mar 2024 Author Response Response to an Additional Editor Comments: First, I would like to thank you for your consideration of this manuscript. a) We have added the additional information. b) The new subsection 'Schematic overview of field questionnaire study' is inserted c) Rightly, we make the corresponding reference of table and figure in the text d) Further research is recommended as well Response to a Request: In response to your request, I would like to inform you that I have submitted simultaneously to PLOS ONE journal two original research articles that have been written as an independent paper for publication. The aforementioned manuscripts were the fruit of a survey carried out on the same clinic population of Moroccan patients with T2DM. Although the same methodology was used for data collection and assessment of dietary intake including dietary TAC assessment, the objective of each manuscript was different. In PONE-D-23-22322 manuscript, we aimed to bring to light new information about the daily intake of antioxidants among patients with T2DM on the basis of the dietary antioxidant index since it is the first study assessing dietary TAC in Moroccan country. The contribution of common food eaten in Morocco to total antioxidant capacity intake was also examined. In PONE-D-23-22223 manuscript, we aimed to explore the relationship between dietary TAC of these patients and obesity-related features regarding the importance of obesity in this clinic population as a common comorbidity of type 2 diabetes and one of the most modifiable risk factors for preventing other comorbid conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. We think so that it is desirable to publish separately the above works and not to present the full data within a single manuscript since each one deals with an objective. Also, that may help to provide more easily understandable information. We declare that the manuscript is original, has not been published before, and is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. Response to a Reviewer 1: The quality of Figure 1 was improved as recommended and conclusion section was included as well. Agreed. Further case-control designed investigation may be considered thereafter. Response to a Reviewer 2: I carefully rewrite the study design and population section with the intent to meet the aforementioned requirements. I have also added a short sentence to discuss the connect between Dietary Antioxidant intake and Type 2 diabetes through presented data on dietary intake according to dietary antioxidant capacity. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301805.r004
24 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor Dietary Total Antioxidant Capacity of Moroccan Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients PONE-D-23-22322R2 Dear Dr. EL FRAKCHI, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for revising your work. It is now acceptable for publication. 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: 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: Yes: Jagmeet Madan ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301805.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-23-22322R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. El Frakchi, 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. Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301805.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 .