Exploring coagulation parameters as predictive biomarkers of Plasmodium infection: A comprehensive analysis of coagulation parameters

Zelalem Tesfaye; Adane Derso; Ayalew Jejaw Zeleke; Ayenew Addisu; Berhanu Woldu; Teshiwal Deress; Gebeyaw Getnet Mekonnen; Yalewayker Tegegne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301963

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 15, 2024
14 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Yash Gupta, Editor PONE-D-24-00531Exploring Coagulation Parameters as Predictive Biomarkers of Malaria Infection: A Comprehensive Analysis of Coagulation ParametersPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Asrat, 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 30 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, Yash Gupta, Ph.D. 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Additional Editor Commenta: Authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly to alleviate language concerns of the reviewers. The manuscript discussion section is also weak, with lack of attention to the results described and previous reports. Looking at the importance of study and novel findings, there is a need for extensive revision and a strong rebuttal to the queries raised by the reviewers. [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: Exploring Coagulation Parameters as Predictive Biomarkers of Malaria Infection: A Comprehensive Analysis of Coagulation Parameters The authors have shown that malaria profoundly influences coagulation parameters, Prothrombin Time (PT), Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT), and International Normalized Ratio (INR). Data analysis reveals that malaria-infected individuals show coagulation abnormalities. Notably, the severity of these coagulation disorders escalates with increasing parasitemia levels, suggesting a direct correlation between parasitemia severity and coagulation time. This research contributes to our understanding of malaria’s impact on coagulation parameters, the study also opens the prospects of additional research to understand the mechanisms of these effects and to explore potential treatment strategies. This study has been continued research in this area to enhance our understanding and management of malaria’s effects on coagulation. Comments: 1) The manuscript is well written and very well-organized conveying its research outcome clearly. 2) All the references are relevant in context to the manuscript. 3) On Page 3 Background section, 4th paragraph, the lines “A high parasitemia load causing hepatic microcirculation occlusion results in abnormalities in the synthesis ……………………………. the widespread activation of blood coagulation” Authors should discuss the factors that would leads to prolongation of blood coagulation as indicated by the results. 4) Authors have collected samples from endemic region however, have the authors considered analyzing the factors like reinfection of the parasite or have they also considered any pre-medication, besides malaria drug since these may also affect the blood coagulation. 5) In the result section authors have considered wide range age. The normal range of the PT value changes with age and should be carefully analyzed since small changes may lead to different out-come. (reference-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992153/) Reviewer #2: 1. The English writing of the manuscript is not well. It should be written in an elegant way. 2. Reframe the sentence, “Despite the high prevalence of malaria in the study area, there has been little published research on the effect of malaria infection on coagulation parameters” as malaria is a disease not infection. 3. In the result section the sentence, “Individuals infected with malaria exhibit coagulation disorders with elevated levels of PT, APTT, and INR in comparison to healthy controls” is using the acronyms. Authors should use full forms first time after that the acronyms. 4. Manuscript is lacking the in depth knowledge of about the basic molecular mechanism of endothelial activation in malaria. Authors should work on the basic molecular pathways of endothelial activation. I will not recommend this manuscript for publication. ****** 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: Yes: Mradul Mohan ******** [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.0301963.r001
Revision 1
14 Mar 2024 Author Response Manuscript submission ID: PONE-D-24-00531 Exploring coagulation parameters as predictive biomarkers of plasmodium infection: a comprehensive analysis of coagulation parameters PLOS ONE Dear PLOSE ONE Academic Editor, We appreciate the invaluable opportunity to enhance our manuscript based on the constructive comments and suggestions provided. We genuinely thank both you and the reviewers for your dedication in offering insightful feedback and acknowledging the considerable time and effort invested. In our revised submission, we meticulously integrated the suggested ideas, made essential corrections, and provided clarifications to address the comments from both the academic editor and the two reviewers. Enclosed herewith are detailed responses from the authors, addressing each comment and suggestion provided by the academic editor and the reviewers. We believe these revisions contribute significantly to the overall improvement of the manuscript. Authors’ response to the editorial comments Dear Editor, Thank you for your relevant comments. We have made modifications to the manuscript as per the comments given as stated below. Editorial comments: 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.pdfand https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Authors’ response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript format and file naming requirements specified by PLOS ONE, and have adjusted our documents accordingly. We have also corrected the authors' affiliation symbol usage according to the template. 2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all the raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations, and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. Authors’ response: We appreciate your diligence in ensuring data transparency and reproducibility. In response to your inquiry, we have uploaded the raw data, including the values for measures such as mean, standard deviation, and other relevant data points, as a supporting information file in the submission system. We believe that this dataset encompasses the "minimal data set" criteria outlined by PLOS, providing the necessary information to replicate the study findings reported in the article. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Authors’ response: The corresponding author has already obtained and validated the ORCID iD in Editorial Manager, following the step-by-step process you provided. We appreciate your guidance and confirm that the necessary actions have been taken to comply with PLOS requirements. 4. Additional editorial comments: Authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly to alleviate the language concerns of the reviewers. The manuscript discussion section is also weak, with a lack of attention to the results described and previous reports. Looking at the importance of the study and novel findings, there is a need for extensive revision and a strong rebuttal to the queries raised by the reviewers. Authors’ response: We have thoroughly proofread the revised submission, addressing language concerns. Additionally, we have strengthened the discussion section by providing more attention to the results and incorporating relevant previous reports. We believe these revisions enhance the manuscript's quality in light of the study's importance and novel findings. We tried to prepare to provide a strong rebuttal to the queries raised by the reviewers. The following are comments given by reviewers’ and authors’ point-by-point responses (The reviewer's comments are numbered and the authors’ responses are underlined) Reviewer # 1 1. The manuscript is well written and very well-organized conveying its research outcome clearly Authors’ response: We appreciate your positive feedback on our manuscript, acknowledging its clarity and organization in conveying the research outcome. We have also meticulously worked on further refining and editing the write-up in the revised submission. 2. All the references are relevant in context to the manuscript Authors’ response: Thank you for your insight 3. On Page 3 Background section, 4th paragraph, the lines “A high parasitemia load causing hepatic microcirculation occlusion results in abnormalities in the synthesis ……………………………. the widespread activation of blood coagulation” Authors should discuss the factors that would leads to prolongation of blood coagulation as indicated by the results Authors’ response: We appreciate your insightful comment in this regard. In response to your query, we have expanded our discussion on the factors influencing the prolongation of blood coagulation time, as outlined below. Notably, prolonged coagulation time can be attributed to severe malaria, particularly cerebral malaria, where alterations in coagulation markers have been identified as valuable prognostic indicators. Additionally, a recent study has highlighted the inhibitory effect of histidine-rich protein II (HRP-II), a protein derived from the parasite, on the anti-coagulant protein antithrombin. Antithrombin physiologically acts as an inhibitor of thrombin, and this interaction adds another layer to our understanding of the complex dynamics influencing blood coagulation in the context of severe malaria. 4. Authors have collected samples from endemic region however, have the authors considered analyzing the factors like reinfection of the parasite or have they also considered any pre-medication, besides malaria drug since these may also affect the blood coagulation. Authors’ response: Regarding the collection of samples from an endemic region, we want to clarify that our exclusion criteria, as outlined in the manuscript, were designed to account for potential confounding factors such as parasite reinfection and pre-medication. Specifically, study participants with a history of anti-malaria drug use within the past two weeks were excluded. This precaution was taken because we hypothesized that such pre-medication might influence the coagulation profile. In addition to excluding participants with recent anti-malaria drug use, we also excluded individuals with a previous history of malaria. This decision aimed to eliminate the possibility of including patients with malaria re-infection, as their condition might introduce variables affecting blood coagulation. 5. In the result section authors have considered wide range age. The normal range of the PT value changes with age and should be carefully analyzed since small changes may lead to different out-come. (reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992153/) Author response: We have revised the categorization of the age groups for our study participants by implementing five distinct age intervals. After careful consideration, we observed that the number of participants below 10 years old and those above 30 years old was relatively low. Consequently, to enhance the clarity and statistical robustness of our analysis, we decided to merge participants aged ten years and below into a single category labeled as “≤ 10 years.” Similarly, participants aged 31 years and above have been combined into a category denoted as “≥ 31 years.” This modification was made to ensure a more balanced distribution of participants across age intervals and to address the limited frequency of individuals in the extreme age ranges, thereby optimizing the reliability of our study outcomes. Reviewer # 2 1. The English writing of the manuscript is not well. It should be written in an elegant way Authors’ response: In the revised submission of the manuscript, we have done significant language editing. 2. Reframe the sentence, “Despite the high prevalence of malaria in the study area, there has been little published research on the effect of malaria infection on coagulation parameters” as malaria is a disease not infection. Authors’ response: We have replaced malaria with plasmodium, as malaria is a disease, not an infection. We did the same thing throughout the revised submission manuscript document. 3. In the result section the sentence, “Individuals infected with malaria exhibit coagulation disorders with elevated levels of PT, APTT, and INR in comparison to healthy controls” is using the acronyms. Authors should use full forms first time after that the acronyms. Authors’ response: PT (Prothrombin Time), APTT (Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time), and INR (International Normalization Ratio), are the extended forms of the abbreviations that we have included in the abstract’s result section, as we should use the full forms when we used it for the first time. 4. Manuscript is lacking the in-depth knowledge of about the basic molecular mechanism of endothelial activation in malaria. Authors should work on the basic molecular pathways of endothelial activation. I will not recommend this manuscript for publication. Authors’ response: Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and the opportunity to address your concerns. While we understand your point regarding the basic molecular mechanism of endothelial activation in malaria disease, we would like to emphasize that our manuscript focuses primarily on the analysis of coagulation parameters as predictive biomarkers of plasmodium infection. We aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of these parameters and their potential significance in the context of malaria. We acknowledge the importance of understanding the molecular pathways of endothelial activation in malaria, and we agree that further research in this area is warranted. However, we believe that our manuscript contributes valuable insights into coagulation parameters as a potential predictive biomarker for Plasmodium infections. By exploring these parameters comprehensively, we hope to shed light on their role in the diagnosis and prognosis of plasmodium infections. We would be more than willing to include a section discussing the basic molecular pathways of endothelial activation, as you have suggested. This addition would enhance the overall understanding of the topic and provide a more comprehensive analysis for the readers. We believe that by incorporating this additional information, our manuscript would be suitable for publication. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301963.r002
27 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Yash Gupta, Editor Exploring coagulation parameters as predictive biomarkers of Plasmodium infection: a comprehensive analysis of coagulation parameters PONE-D-24-00531R1 Dear Dr. Asrat, 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, Yash Gupta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The revised manuscript is fit for the publication in PlosOne 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed all the queries and concerns. The Article may be accepted in the revised form Reviewer #3: The authors have address the reviewer's comments. The manuscript has been revised asper the suggestions. ****** 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 #3: Yes: NAMRATA ANAND ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301963.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yash Gupta, Editor PONE-D-24-00531R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Asrat, 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. Yash Gupta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301963.r004

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 .