Traumatic experiences and place of occurrence: An analysis of sex differences among a sample of recently arrived immigrant adults from Latin America

Laura X. Vargas; Mary D. Sammel; Therese S. Richmond; Connie M. Ulrich; Zachary D. Giano; Lily Berkowitz; C. Neill Epperson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302363

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 21, 2023
8 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor PONE-D-23-10833Traumatic experiences and place of occurrence: an analysis of sex differences among a sample of recently arrived immigrant adults from Latin AmericaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vargas, 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. This paper presents an intriguing and original approach to a topic of crucial relevance to public health, particularly at the intersection with various sectoral policies, encompassing a hard-to-reach population. The findings obtained offer an enriching perspective on intersectionality (gender, race, and class) and immigration policies in the United States. Nevertheless, some considerations should be taken into account regarding the reviewers' assessments, aiming to enhance the content and analysis of the study. Regarding Reviewer 1's evaluation, I agree that the discussion requires a more substantial deepening. While the presented results are information-rich, it's important to delve further into the identified issues. Avoid repeating previously presented results in the earlier section, focusing efforts on a more critical analysis of the implications of these findings. A notable example is the mention of forced displacement as a migration motive, which demands a more thorough analysis to comprehend its ramifications and implications. Furthermore, I acknowledge Reviewer 1's concern about premature conclusions. The difference in safety perception between men and women during the migration journey needs careful examination. This discrepancy might not solely be attributed to a perception of dangers in the country of origin, as suggested. I suggest revising this section, incorporating theoretical perspectives or additional evidence to support the inferences made by the authors. Regarding Reviewer 2's suggestions to enhance the organization of the introduction, I concur with the need to reorganize the paragraphs, starting with those beginning at line 85. This will allow for a more logical progression of ideas and a more cohesive introduction. As for the information about the open-ended question related to migration motives, I agree that it requires greater contextualization. It is advisable to expand this section, providing details about the methodology used in the collection and analysis of immigrants' responses. Lastly, it's important to clarify that the availability of the study's database is crucial. It's not sufficient to merely state that there are some restrictions and that all relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. I recommend a thorough review of the editorial policy of PLOS ONE. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 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, Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, 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. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB 3. Please provide additional information regarding the considerations made for the immigrants included in this study. For instance, please discuss whether participants were able to opt out of the study and whether individuals who did not participate receive the same treatment offered to participants 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: 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: The authors present an interesting and original manuscript on a topic of relevance to public health, in its interface with other sectoral policies, with a population that is difficult to access. However, despite the rich results of the study and what they reveal about intersectionality (gender, race, class) and migration policies in the US, it is considered that the discussion was not sufficiently in-depth. In fact, in several occasions, it is perceived in the discussion, a partial repetition of the results already presented without an in-depth analysis of the identified issues or even without any analysis (i.e.: the forced displacement for migrating was just cited on the discussion without any further analysis.). Other conclusions seem a bit hasty. For example, the difference in perception of safety between men and women during the migration journey might not be due to a perception of dangers in the home country as “normal”. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, Congratulations for your study. The theme is of great relevance, as the geopolitical and economic conditions are the central causes for the findings of the study. It is important to identify the consequences of this political action. It was a pleasure to read your work. I made some comments on your paper, with the intention to help you to align your ideas. • Perhaps, the introduction would be more organized if the paragraphs starting on line 85 were the first one to appear. Then the paragraphs starting on line 66 can continue the text. • I do not understand why the information "an open-ended question asking immigrants to briefly explain their reasons for migrating and circumstances that prompted their decision" is mentioned, since nothing else is informed about it. • It would be interesting if the percentages were homogeneously indicated as numbers, rather than as words or fractions, such as "sixty percent" (line 181) and "three quarters of" (line 182). ****** 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.0302363.r001
Revision 1
19 Nov 2023 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you to the Editor for their helpful observations. Overall, we have made modifications to the manuscript based on the Editor’s and Reviewers’ comments. We address the comments of Reviewers below. We believe the suggestions we received have made this manuscript better and we have tried to be responsive to your helpful suggestions. - In terms of making the dataset publicly available, we do not have explicit consent from our participants to make our data publicly available. In fact, because of the sensitive nature of this data and the vulnerability of this population, we have told our participants that this data is only available in a de-identified way to members of the research team. We realize that we are in an era of open data, but we also know of the reluctance of certain understudied and extremely important populations to participate in research. Part of our ability to collect this data is the trust that participants place in us. We value their trust greatly and it is vital to respect our commitment to the trust placed in us. However, as requested by the journal, we provide a non-author point of contact where data requests may be sent. We thank Reviewer #1 for their helpful comments and insights. Based on the feedback we received we have: o Edited the discussion section to reflect a more in-depth analysis of our results, by placing it within existing theory and evidence in the field. o We appreciate the observation that we were repeating some of our results, and we have eliminated repeating of findings the discussion and instead include a more in-depth analysis of what our results may mean for the current state of the literature. o We have revised some of the conclusions that are considered premature and provided an overall better context for our discussion section. Thank you to Reviewer #2 for their helpful suggestions and comments. In response to them we have made the following changes: o We moved the paragraphs in the introduction according to the Reviewer’s suggestions. o We have clarified the responses for the question on the reason for migration. We clarify that actually, rather than an open-ended answer (we described it incorrectly in our previous draft), the reason for migration is a multiple choice response and we clarify what the possible answers to this question are in the methods section of the manuscript. o We modified the language to reflect percentages as numbers We thank you again for considering this manuscript for peer-review in your Journal. Please let us know if there is anything else you may need. Sincerely, Laura Vargas, PhD, LMSW, MPA (corresponding author) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosOne_Response_Letter_FINAL.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302363.r002
31 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor PONE-D-23-10833R1Traumatic experiences and place of occurrence: an analysis of sex differences among a sample of recently arrived immigrant adults from Latin AmericaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vargas, 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. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your consideration of the suggestions submitted during the last round of evaluation. I kindly request that you once again take into account the comments provided by the reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 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, Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Ph.D. 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. [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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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: 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 #1: The authors made significant changes to the article to allow its publication. However, a review regarding some aspects is still necessary. Some doubts persist, especially concerning the rationale behind the choices of the data that the authors propose to analyze, despite of others. For example, we have the percentage of pregnant women or men whose wives were pregnant, which seemed non-negligible (15.6%), but is not mentioned in the article as a significant and noteworthy data. Overall, it seems that the richness of the findings deserves a more extensive discussion, or that the choices should be explicitly stated. Other minor considerations: 1) p.13 l. 252 - it is suggested to avoid expressions like "past year" and instead use the specific year in question; 2) p.13, l. 254 to 258: The second sentence does not justify the first statement, as the authors attempt to do; 3) references 32 to 35 appear for the first time in the text after references 36 to 38. ****** 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 ******** [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.0302363.r003
Revision 2
7 Mar 2024 Author Response We thank Reviewer #1 once again for their helpful comments and insights. To address the reviewer’s comments we made the following changes to our submission: - We thank the reviewer for their comment on explicitly stating the rationale for our analysis. We add a sentence at the end of our Introduction section doing so, which we hope will be helpful. - We thank the reviewers for highlighting the importance of the proportion of our sample who are pregnant or traveling with a pregnant partner. We make reference to this portion of our sample in more detail in the result page 6 lines 179-181, and again in our discussion of results in page 13 lines 261-266. - We thank the reviewer for their comment regarding the richness of our discussion. WE have tried to incorporate some of the suggestions of reviewers in the previous round of comments and in this round of comments in the hopes that we can improve this manuscript. We also try to balance the need for our manuscript to be clear, concise, and precise in its content to meet the journal’s very reasonable requirements. - We clarify in the measures section of our manuscript what is meant by the “previous year” page 5, lines 140-141. Because the survey questions is meant to ask about employment in the 12 months prior to the date of interviews, we do not refer to a specific year of employment because our interviews were conducted over the course of several weeks/months the year in reference may be different. In addition, the way we phrase the question is “how many months did you work in the previous 12 months?” – an explanation that we include in our manuscript. - We included two clarifying sentences in page 13, lines 256-260 about how war-like conditions in the Latin American region may be linked to migrants’ decisions to leave their home countries. - We have made the proper adjustments for references to appear in sequential order. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosOne_Response_Letter_030524.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302363.r004
3 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor Traumatic experiences and place of occurrence: an analysis of sex differences among a sample of recently arrived immigrant adults from Latin America PONE-D-23-10833R2 Dear Dr. Vargas, 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, Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 ****** 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: Good quality paper, subject of major interest, highly recommended publication. All comments have been addressed. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Clarissa Terenzi Seixas ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302363.r005
Formally Accepted
24 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael, Editor PONE-D-23-10833R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vargas, 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. Ricardo de Mattos Russo Rafael Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302363.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 .