Malaria prevalence and use of control measures in an area with persistent transmission in Senegal

Fassiatou Tairou; Ibrahima Gaye; Samantha Herrera; Saira Nawaz; Libasse Sarr; Birane Cissé; Babacar Faye; Roger C. K. Tine

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303794

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 20, 2023
9 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Sylla Thiam, Editor PONE-D-23-41641Malaria prevalence and use of control measures in an area with persistent transmission in SenegalPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tairou, 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 Feb 23 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, Sylla Thiam, M.D, MPH 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “The study was supported by the Senegalese National Malaria Control Program, through an agreement with the Department of Parasitology and Mycology of University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (# funding number: NFM 2-SEN-M-PNLP 2018 - 2019 -2020). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript” Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The paper is very relevant and timely. The study is well designed and easily explained. The manuscript is well written in a very simple and accessible language. Results are well presented with their respective public health implications. Lastly key recommandations are given to strenghten malaria surveillance in all age groupes and support national effort towards malaria elimination. However, Saraya being a high transmission area where SMC is implemented since almost 10 years, we cannot understand that SMC data was not collected among children under 10 years. The authors did not give any explanation on the absence of SMC data during data collection and analysis. The absence of SMC data is a major limit that needs to be adressed by the authors. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 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: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This study was conducted in a high malaria transmission area of Senegal, the district of Saraya where seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) is implemented for children under 10 years of age. In Saraya district’s, under 10 children receive monthly a curative dose of antimalarial during the malaria transmission season from June to October. Why don’t the authors include the SMC coverage in their data collection? Is the low prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic malaria in children under 10 not due to SMC? I think that conducting a malaria prevalence study in an area like Saraya should take into account the coverage rate for a better interpretation of the results. I recommend that authors include the CMS coverage rate in their data collection. Corrections are also needed for Plasmodium species. P. falciparum instead of P. Falciparum Reviewer #2: General Comment: The title of the manuscript is suitable and relevant to the health challenges ravaging the sub-Sahara subregion of the world. The research is well-conceived and executed. The language of communication and the grammar are good. The methodology and data analysis are explicit. The result is well presented in tables and figures. The discussion is well written. References are ok. However, there are a few issues for clarification. Abstract: Page 3 Line 50-51 & 56-57. There are discrepancies between the statement on malaria by age group. Line 50-51. “There was no statistical difference in malaria infection by age group.” Line 56-57. “Participants aged 5-9 years were more likely to have malaria infection compared to under five children (aOR=1.40, 95% CI:1.02-1.91).” Introduction: Page 4. Line 74-78. It was observed that you used different indices for malaria mortality, which did not allow for an easy comparison of the trend in malaria mortality between 2020 and 2022. You are advised to use the same metric for comparison to ensure objectivity. Method: Page 6. Line 113. You will need to be explicit on inclusion and exclusion criteria as individuals on antimalaria may be asymptomatic at the time of the recruitment and should have been excluded as they may still harbour the parasite. Page 7. Line 161-163. Provide a reference for the Senegalese population used to compare the proportion of each age group recruited. Page 8. Line 183-189. Information on individuals concerned with preparing the smear should be provided. Were they trained? Page 12. Table 1. The table shows that 43.2% had no occupation, while 25.7% were students. What, then, is the main source of livelihood for most of the populace? Table1. page 12. Different spellings were used for the “Quranic” school….”Koranic”….”Choranic”. Kindly reconcile the spelling. Page 14-15. Consistent use of abbreviation for Plasmodium falciparum as P. falciparum. Ensure the same abbreviation after the initial full written form. Discussion. Ok Page 22. Line 452-458. The study limitation, which considers the microscopy method used in this community study to be a possibility of missed diagnosis in low-density infection, may need to be revised. In a study by Berzosa et al. 2018 in Equatorial Guinea, the microscopy used in your research is still recommended by WHO as it is cheap, allows for species differentiation, and is the acclaimed gold standard for diagnosis by WHO. “Berzosa, P., de Lucio, A., Romay-Barja, M. et al. Comparison of three diagnostic methods (microscopy, RDT, and PCR) for detecting malaria parasites in representative samples from Equatorial Guinea. Malar J 17, 333 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-018-2481-4” three metho References. Ok ****** 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: BELLO IBRAHIM SEBUTU ******** [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.0303794.r001
Revision 1
24 Mar 2024 Author Response To PLOS ONE editor Subject: Response to Reviewers Ref: PONE-D-23-41641 Malaria prevalence and use of control measures in an area with persistent transmission in Senegal Dear Editor; On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for the comments and submit below the point-by-point responses to the concerns raised during the review process: 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" Authors’ reply: The manuscript has been revised in accordance with PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file naming 2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “The study was supported by the Senegalese National Malaria Control Program, through an agreement with the Department of Parasitology and Mycology of University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (# funding number: NFM 2-SEN-M-PNLP 2018 - 2019 -2020). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript” Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Authors’ reply: The amended statements (see below) have been included in the cover letter: The study was supported by the Senegalese National Malaria Control Program, through an agreement with the Department of Parasitology and Mycology of University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (# funding number: NFM 2-SEN-M-PNLP 2018 - 2019 -2020). There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Authors’reply: The correct grant number is (NFM 2-SEN-M-PNLP 2018 - 2019 -2020). 4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. Authors’reply: The manuscript has been revised to reflect separate caption for each figure 5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. Authors’reply: Fig 1 illustrating the study site was created by one of the co-authors (Mr Libasse Sarr) for this article, and was not previously published anywhere. A permission to publish the figure under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 is requested from him and the Content Permission Form is submitted along with the revised version of the manuscript. 6. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The paper is very relevant and timely. The study is well designed and easily explained. The manuscript is well written in a very simple and accessible language. Results are well presented with their respective public health implications. Lastly key recommendations are given to strenghten malaria surveillance in all age groupes and support national effort towards malaria elimination. However, Saraya being a high transmission area where SMC is implemented since almost 10 years, we cannot understand that SMC data was not collected among children under 10 years. The authors did not give any explanation on the absence of SMC data during data collection and analysis. The absence of SMC data is a major limit that needs to be adressed by the authors. Authors’reply: The study collected data on SMC coverage among children under 10 years. These data are presented in the revised version as follow: According to the report of caregivers/mothers, a proportion of sixty-eight percent (68.8%) of children aged 6 months to 10 years (n=839) received at least one dose of SMC; full coverage of SMC (3 days of treatment for all four rounds) was evaluated at 46.8% (see Table 1, page 13) Reviewer #1: 1. This study was conducted in a high malaria transmission area of Senegal, the district of Saraya where seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) is implemented for children under 10 years of age. In Saraya district’s, under 10 children receive monthly a curative dose of antimalarial during the malaria transmission season from June to October. Why don’t the authors include the SMC coverage in their data collection? I think that conducting a malaria prevalence study in an area like Saraya should take into account the coverage rate for a better interpretation of the results. I recommend that authors include the CMS coverage rate in their data collection. Authors’reply : The study collected data on SMC coverage among children under 10 years. These data are presented in the revised version as follow: According to the report of caregivers/mothers, a proportion of sixty-eight percent (68.8%) of children aged 6 months to 10 years (n=839) received at least one dose of SMC; full coverage of SMC (3 days of treatment for all four rounds) was evaluated at 46.8% (see Table 1, page 13) 2. Is the low prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic malaria in children under 10 not due to SMC? Authors’reply: Though SMC data was collected in this study, we did not find any evidence of SMC effect on symptomatic or asymptomatic P. falciparum malaria due to lack of power. Indeed, assessing SMC effect on symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, will require subgroup analysis with restrictions on SMC targets who were found with P. falciparum infections either symptomatic or asymptomatic (N=198). This prevalence study was designed to assess malaria prevalence at all age group but was not powered to detect an effect of SMC on symptomatic or asymptomatic malaria. 3. Corrections are also needed for Plasmodium species. P. falciparum instead of P. Falciparum Authors’reply: Plasmodium species “P. falciparum” has been harmonized throughout the manuscript Reviewer #2: 1. Abstract: Page 3 Line 50-51 & 56-57. There are discrepancies between the statement on malaria by age group. Line 50-51. “There was no statistical difference in malaria infection by age group.” Line 56-57. “Participants aged 5-9 years were more likely to have malaria infection compared to under five children (aOR=1.40, 95% CI:1.02-1.91).” Authors’reply: The authors agreed with the reviewer. Line 50-51 refer to univariate analysis and this has showed a significant effect of age on malaria prevalence (specifically between children aged 5-10 years old and adults aged �20 years old). To avoid confusion with the multivariate analysis, the manuscript is revised and the sentence in Line 50-51 is removed. 2. Introduction: Page 4. Line 74-78. It was observed that you used different indices for malaria mortality, which did not allow for an easy comparison of the trend in malaria mortality between 2020 and 2022. You are advised to use the same metric for comparison to ensure objectivity. Authors’reply: This section has been revised in the manuscript. “Mortality rate” is used to compare malaria mortality between 2020-2022 (Please, see Line 78-80) 3. Method: Page 6. Line 113. You will need to be explicit on inclusion and exclusion criteria as individuals on antimalaria may be asymptomatic at the time of the recruitment and should have been excluded as they may still harbour the parasite. Authors’reply: The manuscript has been revised to take into account the reviewer’s comment; inclusion and exclusion criteria considered during the recruitment are added to the revised manuscript (Please, see Line 126-130). Page 7. Line 161-163. Provide a reference for the Senegalese population used to compare the proportion of each age group recruited. Authors’reply: The reference for the Senegalese population used for the proportion of each age group is provided in the revised manuscript (Please, see Line 172). Page 8. Line 183-189. Information on individuals concerned with preparing the smear should be provided. Were they trained? Authors’reply: Individuals involved in the preparation of the smear were trained on the sample collection and the preparation of the smears. The manuscript is revised to reflect this information Please, see Line 201-204). Page 12. Table 1. The table shows that 43.2% had no occupation, while 25.7% were students. What, then, is the main source of livelihood for most of the populace? Authors’reply: In the study area, the main source of livelihood for most of the population is farming and gold mining . This figure is well represented among adults in the study population, with around 60% (farming 21.2% and gold mining 38.4%) (Please, see Table 1). Table1. page 12. Different spellings were used for the “Quranic” school….”Koranic”….”Choranic”. Kindly reconcile the spelling. Authors’reply: The manuscript is revised and “Koranic school” is used throughout the document. Page 14-15. Consistent use of abbreviation for Plasmodium falciparum as P. falciparum. Ensure the same abbreviation after the initial full written form. Authors’reply: The manuscript is revised in accordance. P. falciparum has been used throughout the manuscript as abbreviation for Plasmodium falciparum. 4. Discussion. Page 22. Line 452-458. The study limitation, which considers the microscopy method used in this community study to be a possibility of missed diagnosis in low-density infection, may need to be revised. In a study by Berzosa et al. 2018 in Equatorial Guinea, the microscopy used in your research is still recommended by WHO as it is cheap, allows for species differentiation, and is the acclaimed gold standard for diagnosis by WHO. “Berzosa, P., de Lucio, A., Romay-Barja, M. et al. Comparison of three diagnostic methods (microscopy, RDT, and PCR) for detecting malaria parasites in representative samples from Equatorial Guinea. Malar J 17, 333 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-018-2481-4” three metho Authors’reply: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. This limitation has been removed from the revised manuscript (Please, see Line 512-513). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers..docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303794.r002
1 May 2024 Decision Letter - Sylla Thiam, Editor Malaria prevalence and use of control measures in an area with persistent transmission in Senegal PONE-D-23-41641R1 Dear Dr. Tairou 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, Sylla Thiam, M.D, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303794.r003

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 .