An algorithmic approach to detect generalization in sketch maps from sketch map alignment

Charu Manivannan; Jakub Krukar; Angela Schwering

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304696

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 10, 2023
31 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Editor PONE-D-23-41484An Algorithmic Approach to Detect Generalization in Sketch Maps from Sketch Map AlignmentPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Manivannan, 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. Reviewer #1: The research presented holds substantial scientific merit, particularly in the domains of Geoscience and Digital Charts, and offers innovative insights. Its originality is commendable, and the availability of the code through a GitHub repository is appreciated. However, there are areas that require attention: The manuscript's length is excessive, leading to reader confusion. A more concise presentation, especially regarding generalization approaches, would enhance readability. These approaches, already discussed in prior studies, could be summarized briefly. There is noticeable repetition within the text. For example, the content description of Figure 1 is redundant on pages 6 and 8. Specific concerns and suggestions include: 1) The detailed description of generalization techniques (e.g., on page 20) is overly extensive. A brief summary with references to existing literature would suffice. 2) The method for identifying regions of interest from sketch drawings needs clarification. It's unclear whether this requires manual input or is automatically detected. In other words, how do you specify OSM map region based from sketch map? 3) The computational complexity of the proposed method is not addressed. An analytical discussion of its feasibility for large datasets (1000+ features) would be beneficial. 4) My biggest concern is that the Table 2's content and the abbreviation 'SM' are unclear. Furthermore, there are repetitive row names, such as 'SMO 0 - Amalgamation,' which hinder the interpretation of results. 5) Chapter 5 appears to add little value. Consider removing or integrating it with Section 6 for brevity and clarity. Overall, the study is a valuable contribution and seems fit for publication upon revision. I recommend focusing on Section 4, elaborating on the results and providing a more detailed discussion. A minor note: mentioning raster generalization may be unnecessary, as sketch maps inherently involve vector data. I look forward to reviewing a revised version of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: An Algorithmic Approach to Detect Generalization in Sketch Maps from Sketch Map Alignment This is an interesting topic. The idea and contributions of this study appear to be a valid one, and together with their earlier work, it has the potential to offer a helpful guide for various disciplines. On the whole, the paper is structured reasonably, and its intentions and argument are relatively clear. The discussion and conclusion sections are potentially the most interesting parts of the paper, and at present the least well-developed. A helpful way forward would be to identify a hierarchy to structure the implication more effectively. It would be better for a new iteration of this paper to highlight the similarities and differences of this research compared to previous studies such as the following, and to specifically locate new concepts in the form of a review analysis. Finally, major revision is suggested. - Hadlos, A., Opdyke, A., & Hadigheh, S. A. (2022). Where does local and indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction go from here? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103160. - Membele, G. M., Naidu, M., & Mutanga, O. (2022). Examining flood vulnerability mapping approaches in developing countries: A scoping review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 69, 102766. - Klonner, C., Hartmann, M., Dischl, R., Djami, L., Anderson, L., Raifer, M., ... & Porto de Albuquerque, J. (2021). The sketch map tool facilitates the assessment of OpenStreetMap data for participatory mapping. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 130. - Shen, Y., Ai, T., Li, J., Huang, L., & Li, W. (2020). A progressive method for the collapse of river representation considering geographical characteristics. International Journal of Digital Earth, 13(12), 1366-1390. - Jakobi, Á., & Pődör, A. (2020). GIS-based statistical analysis of detecting fear of crime with digital sketch maps: A Hungarian multicity study. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(4), 229. - Brandt, K., Graham, L., Hawthorne, T., Jeanty, J., Burkholder, B., Munisteri, C., & Visaggi, C. (2020). Integrating sketch mapping and hot spot analysis to enhance capacity for community‐level flood and disaster risk management. The Geographical Journal, 186(2), 198-212. 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, Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (SCHW1372/7-3, “Sketchmapia”) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Sinergia 202284, “3D Sketch Maps”)." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Previously, we conducted a user study wherein human raters identified generalizations in sketch map. The results of which are published in Journal of environmental Psychology. In this article, we present an algorithmic approach that automatically detects generalization from sketch map alignment. We compare the output from the algorithm to the results of our previous study. As the main contribution of the paper is the algorithm, and we are using the data from previous study only for comparison, we request not to consider this as dual publication.] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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 research presented holds substantial scientific merit, particularly in the domains of Geoscience and Digital Charts, and offers innovative insights. Its originality is commendable, and the availability of the code through a GitHub repository is appreciated. However, there are areas that require attention: The manuscript's length is excessive, leading to reader confusion. A more concise presentation, especially regarding generalization approaches, would enhance readability. These approaches, already discussed in prior studies, could be summarized briefly. There is noticeable repetition within the text. For example, the content description of Figure 1 is redundant on pages 6 and 8. Specific concerns and suggestions include: 1) The detailed description of generalization techniques (e.g., on page 20) is overly extensive. A brief summary with references to existing literature would suffice. 2) The method for identifying regions of interest from sketch drawings needs clarification. It's unclear whether this requires manual input or is automatically detected. In other words, how do you specify OSM map region based from sketch map? 3) The computational complexity of the proposed method is not addressed. An analytical discussion of its feasibility for large datasets (1000+ features) would be beneficial. 4) My biggest concern is that the Table 2's content and the abbreviation 'SM' are unclear. Furthermore, there are repetitive row names, such as 'SMO 0 - Amalgamation,' which hinder the interpretation of results. 5) Chapter 5 appears to add little value. Consider removing or integrating it with Section 6 for brevity and clarity. Overall, the study is a valuable contribution and seems fit for publication upon revision. I recommend focusing on Section 4, elaborating on the results and providing a more detailed discussion. A minor note: mentioning raster generalization may be unnecessary, as sketch maps inherently involve vector data. I look forward to reviewing a revised version of the manuscript. Note to Editor and Authors: Please be aware that English is not my mother tongue. As a result, in this review, I have generally refrained from assessing the language quality and style of the manuscript. My focus was primarily on the content and scientific aspects of the study. Reviewer #2: An Algorithmic Approach to Detect Generalization in Sketch Maps from Sketch Map Alignment Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the opportunity to look at this paper with the above title. This is an interesting topic. The idea and contributions of this study appear to be a valid one, and together with their earlier work, it has the potential to offer a helpful guide for various disciplines. On the whole, the paper is structured reasonably, and its intentions and argument are relatively clear. The discussion and conclusion sections are potentially the most interesting parts of the paper, and at present the least well-developed. A helpful way forward would be to identify a hierarchy to structure the implication more effectively. It would be better for a new iteration of this paper to highlight the similarities and differences of this research compared to previous studies such as the following, and to specifically locate new concepts in the form of a review analysis. Finally, major revision is suggested. - Hadlos, A., Opdyke, A., & Hadigheh, S. A. (2022). Where does local and indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction go from here? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103160. - Membele, G. M., Naidu, M., & Mutanga, O. (2022). Examining flood vulnerability mapping approaches in developing countries: A scoping review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 69, 102766. - Klonner, C., Hartmann, M., Dischl, R., Djami, L., Anderson, L., Raifer, M., ... & Porto de Albuquerque, J. (2021). The sketch map tool facilitates the assessment of OpenStreetMap data for participatory mapping. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 130. - Shen, Y., Ai, T., Li, J., Huang, L., & Li, W. (2020). A progressive method for the collapse of river representation considering geographical characteristics. International Journal of Digital Earth, 13(12), 1366-1390. - Jakobi, Á., & Pődör, A. (2020). GIS-based statistical analysis of detecting fear of crime with digital sketch maps: A Hungarian multicity study. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(4), 229. - Brandt, K., Graham, L., Hawthorne, T., Jeanty, J., Burkholder, B., Munisteri, C., & Visaggi, C. (2020). Integrating sketch mapping and hot spot analysis to enhance capacity for community‐level flood and disaster risk management. The Geographical Journal, 186(2), 198-212. ****** 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: Yes: Andrzej Chybicki, PhD Eng. 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.0304696.r001
Revision 1
3 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable comments. It has helped us to improve the quality of the paper significantly. Below you can find the reply addressed to each of the suggestions. Reviewer #1: Andrzej Chybicki, PhD Eng. The manuscript's length is excessive, leading to reader confusion. A more concise presentation, especially regarding generalization approaches, would enhance readability. These approaches, already discussed in prior studies, could be summarized briefly. The length of the manuscript has been reduced by four pages. There is noticeable repetition within the text. For example, the content description of Figure 1 is redundant on pages 6 and 8. The explanation of Figure 1 on page 8 has been removed. Specific concerns and suggestions include: 1) The detailed description of generalization techniques (e.g., on page 20) is overly extensive. A brief summary with references to existing literature would suffice. The description of generalization technique in section 2.2 has been moved to fit within Figure 2. The description on page 20 is however not the explanation of generalization type, but rather how the algorithm detects the different generalization types. We apologize for not being clear with it. The texts on page 20 have been slightly modified to make it clear that the texts are description of generalization algorithm and not of generalization operator. 2) The method for identifying regions of interest from sketch drawings needs clarification. It's unclear whether this requires manual input or is automatically detected. In other words, how do you specify OSM map region based from sketch map? It requires manual input. We have mentioned it now in section 3.3. 3) The computational complexity of the proposed method is not addressed. An analytical discussion of its feasibility for large datasets (1000+ features) would be beneficial. We have added the aspect of computational comlexity in terms of time and storage in section 4.2 4) My biggest concern is that the Table 2's content and the abbreviation 'SM' are unclear. Furthermore, there are repetitive row names, such as 'SMO 0 - Amalgamation,' which hinder the interpretation of results. We have modified the Table 2’s content to make it clear and also added explanation on Table 2’s content in section 4.1. 5) Chapter 5 appears to add little value. Consider removing or integrating it with Section 6 for brevity and clarity. We have removed chapter 5 and integrated it with the conclusion in section 5 (previously section 6) Overall, the study is a valuable contribution and seems fit for publication upon revision. I recommend focusing on Section 4, elaborating on the results and providing a more detailed discussion. A minor note: mentioning raster generalization may be unnecessary, as sketch maps inherently involve vector data. We have removed the texts on raster generalization (section 2.3) Reviewer #2: An Algorithmic Approach to Detect Generalization in Sketch Maps from Sketch Map Alignment This is an interesting topic. The idea and contributions of this study appear to be a valid one, and together with their earlier work, it has the potential to offer a helpful guide for various disciplines. On the whole, the paper is structured reasonably, and its intentions and argument are relatively clear. The discussion and conclusion sections are potentially the most interesting parts of the paper, and at present the least well-developed. A helpful way forward would be to identify a hierarchy to structure the implication more effectively. Thanks for pointing this out. We have elaborated the discussion sections and conclusion sections. The implication has been made clear in the conclusion. It would be better for a new iteration of this paper to highlight the similarities and differences of this research compared to previous studies such as the following, and to specifically locate new concepts in the form of a review analysis. Finally, major revision is suggested. - Hadlos, A., Opdyke, A., & Hadigheh, S. A. (2022). Where does local and indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction go from here? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103160. - Membele, G. M., Naidu, M., & Mutanga, O. (2022). Examining flood vulnerability mapping approaches in developing countries: A scoping review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 69, 102766. - Klonner, C., Hartmann, M., Dischl, R., Djami, L., Anderson, L., Raifer, M., ... & Porto de Albuquerque, J. (2021). The sketch map tool facilitates the assessment of OpenStreetMap data for participatory mapping. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 130. - Shen, Y., Ai, T., Li, J., Huang, L., & Li, W. (2020). A progressive method for the collapse of river representation considering geographical characteristics. International Journal of Digital Earth, 13(12), 1366-1390. - Jakobi, Á., & Pődör, A. (2020). GIS-based statistical analysis of detecting fear of crime with digital sketch maps: A Hungarian multicity study. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(4), 229. - Brandt, K., Graham, L., Hawthorne, T., Jeanty, J., Burkholder, B., Munisteri, C., & Visaggi, C. (2020). Integrating sketch mapping and hot spot analysis to enhance capacity for community‐level flood and disaster risk management. The Geographical Journal, 186(2), 198-212. Thank you for the references. We have discussed how our approach of handling generalization in sketch map can enhance the previous works in section 2.1. We have integrated all your suggested references into the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: changeReport.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304696.r002
17 May 2024 Decision Letter - Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Editor An algorithmic approach to detect generalization in sketch maps from sketch map alignment PONE-D-23-41484R1 Dear Dr. Manivannan, 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, Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: My suggestions to the manuscript have been addressed. I recommend this research to be published in PLOS ONE Journal. I want to congratulate Authors for good and valuable work that provides interesting scientific input for scientific community. PS Note to editor: as I'm not a native speaker I recommend the language of the manuscript to be verified by an expert. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Andrzej Chybicki Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304696.r003
Formally Accepted
22 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Editor PONE-D-23-41484R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Manivannan, 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. Saeid Norouzian-Maleki Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304696.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 .