Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 1, 2023
Decision Letter - Satyaki Roy, Editor

PONE-D-23-33238Younger and Rural Children are More Likely to be Hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 Infections.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

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 Apr 27 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,

Satyaki Roy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Center for Translational Pediatric Research (NIH/NIGMS P20GM121293)

The Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS UL1TR003107)"

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was supported by the Center for Translational Pediatric Research (NIH/NIGMSP20GM121293) at Arkansas Children’s Hospital and by the Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS UL1TR003107) at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

 "Center for Translational Pediatric Research (NIH/NIGMS P20GM121293)

The Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS UL1TR003107)"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

" Dr. Kennedy has been a consultant for Genentech for asthma. Funding organizations were not involved in the design or conduct of the study, nor were they engaged in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor were they involved in the preparation, editing, or censuring of the manuscript."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

7. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Suzanne House.

8. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

9. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper presents a useful study on the factors contributing to pediatric cases of SARS-CoV-2.

The authors are encouraged to submit a minor revision that addresses the reviewer’s comments related to missing explanations on the dataset and improvements to the presentation of the results.

[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

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 performed a comprehensive retrospective review at a single center and using the Pediatric Hospital Information System (PHIS) on pediatric cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization. This study delineated demographic information and odds ratio for hospitalization, with different subgroup analyses (such as age group, race and gender). Overall, these comprehensive review and data analysis were performed well. There are some minor suggestions that can further improve the manuscript prior to publication.

1. In line 41, the manuscript stated the children that presented to ACH between March 1, 2020, and April 28, 2022 were included. However, in line 71, the start date of pre-Delta period is stated as May 27, 2020. Furthermore, in line 109, the manuscript stated that cases identified were between May 28, 2020 and April 28, 2022. The authors should explain the reasons of differences in the start dates of case identification.

2. Section ‘Data preprocessing’, a cut-off of 30 days was used to differentiate initial and second infection. It is necessary to explain, preferably with reference(s), to support the use of such a cut-off.

3. In line 118, please consider the change of ‘One hundred and thirty’ to ‘130’ as Arabic numbers were used to describe number of patients in line 117 and 119, and 130 should be a large enough number to be used as an Arabic number to start the sentence.

4. For reference no. 26, it would be consistent to change ‘Accessed 8/2023’ to ‘Accessed August 2023’ as the same style as references no. 1 and 15.

5. In table 2, the p-value for univariate analyses in the gender part is 0.0398, which should be considered significant according to the statistical analysis stated. However, the p-value was not bolded. Was this because the significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons? Please explain.

6. Figure 2 can be improved by explaining the x-axis and scale in the figure legend.

7. "Sex" is considered to be male/female as determined at birth, whereas gender is the male/female by preference and chosen. For this cohort, the use of "sex" seems more applicable. Additionally, line 58 states the PHIS Database uses "sex" as well. Therefore, this seems to be a more applicable term for this study. If indeed this is the case, please change throughout the manuscript.

**********

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: Jaime S Rosa Duque

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Editorial Review.

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

This has been completed.

2. 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.

This has been completed.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Center for Translational Pediatric Research (NIH/NIGMS P20GM121293)

The Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS UL1TR003107)"

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.

This has been completed and can be found in our cover letter and on the title page.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was supported by the Center for Translational Pediatric Research (NIH/NIGMSP20GM121293) at Arkansas Children’s Hospital and by the Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS UL1TR003107) at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"Center for Translational Pediatric Research (NIH/NIGMS P20GM121293)

The Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS UL1TR003107)" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

This has been completed. In fact, the acknowledgments section has been removed completely.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

" Dr. Kennedy has been a consultant for Genentech for asthma. Funding organizations were not involved in the design or conduct of the study, nor were they engaged in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor were they involved in the preparation, editing, or censuring of the manuscript." Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

This has been completed and is included on the title page and in the cover letter as requested.

6. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

This has been completed.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

This has been completed.

Data Availability Statement: Because of the confidential nature of some of the data and our institutional review board (IRB) restrictions, data will only be provided upon request and with an approved IRB protocol. Data requests can be sent to Dr. Rebecca Cantu (corresponding author).

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

This has been completed. See above.

7. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Suzanne House.

This has been completed.

8. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

This has been completed.

9. 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.

This has been completed. Upon my review, I do not see any references that have been retracted. We have changed reference 27 per the reviewer’s concerns (see below). We have also altered reference 15 as the full author was not evident. Finally, we added references 14 and 17 because of the reviewer’s concerns about 30-day infection intervals for secondary infections.

Reviewer #1.

This study performed a comprehensive retrospective review at a single center and using the Pediatric Hospital Information System (PHIS) on pediatric cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization. This study delineated demographic information and odds ratio for hospitalization, with different subgroup analyses (such as age group, race and gender). Overall, these comprehensive review and data analysis were performed well. There are some minor suggestions that can further improve the manuscript prior to publication.

1. In line 41, the manuscript stated the children that presented to ACH between March 1, 2020, and April 28, 2022 were included. However, in line 71, the start date of pre-Delta period is stated as May 27, 2020. Furthermore, in line 109, the manuscript stated that cases identified were between May 28, 2020 and April 28, 2022. The authors should explain the reasons of differences in the start dates of case identification.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concerns. After review of our data, we realized our mistake. The start of the data collection for the PHIS dataset was May 27, 2020. We have made changes to the manuscript to reflect this.

2. Section ‘Data preprocessing’, a cut-off of 30 days was used to differentiate initial and second infection. It is necessary to explain, preferably with reference(s), to support the use of such a cut-off.

We appreciate the reviewer's comments. We utilized the 30-day cut-off for this manuscript because this is the time period that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services considers a readmission for hospital billing purposes. We also used this cut-off in our previous paper (now cited at this point). We recognize that the CDC defines reinfection after 90 days of the first exposure. However, many of these patients were admitted not on their first positive but on their second. CDC also says that the evolving variants increase your risk of reinfection, which can happen as early as “several weeks after a previous infection, although this is rare.” For these reasons, we chose to include data at ≥30 days.

3. In line 118, please consider the change of ‘One hundred and thirty’ to ‘130’ as Arabic numbers were used to describe number of patients in line 117 and 119, and 130 should be a large enough number to be used as an Arabic number to start the sentence.

This has been changed as suggested by the reviewer.

4. For reference no. 26, it would be consistent to change ‘Accessed 8/2023’ to ‘Accessed August 2023’ as the same style as references no. 1 and 15.

This has now been changed as suggested by the reviewer.

5. In table 2, the p-value for univariate analyses in the gender part is 0.0398, which should be considered significant according to the statistical analysis stated. However, the p-value was not bolded. Was this because the significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons? Please explain.

We have now placed this p-value in bold as suggested by the reviewer.

6. Figure 2 can be improved by explaining the x-axis and scale in the figure legend.

We have now made the suggested changes to the figure legend.

7. "Sex" is considered to be male/female as determined at birth, whereas gender is the male/female by preference and chosen. For this cohort, the use of "sex" seems more applicable. Additionally, line 58 states the PHIS Database uses "sex" as well. Therefore, this seems to be a more applicable term for this study. If indeed this is the case, please change throughout the manuscript.

We have now made these changes (lines 101 and 151, Tables 1 and 2, and supplemental Table 1) as suggested by the reviewer.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Satyaki Roy, Editor

Younger and Rural Children are More Likely to be Hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 Infections.

PONE-D-23-33238R1

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

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,

Satyaki Roy, 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

**********

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: 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

**********

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: This study contributes more data to the literature on SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization using the Pediatric Hospital Information System. The authors have addressed the prior comments adequately.

**********

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: Jaime S Rosa Duque

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Satyaki Roy, Editor

PONE-D-23-33238R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

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. Satyaki Roy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .