Development and validation of the health education demand scale for HPV infected patients based on KANO model

Yuying Zhang; Li Luo; Shuaihui Du; Die Hou; Yaling Zhang; Limin He; Lihua Zhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309630

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 16, 2024
15 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Nicola Serra, Editor PONE-D-24-32314Development and validation of the health education demand scale for HPV infected patients based on KANO modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, 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 Oct 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nicola Serra 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 3. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, some of my suggestions for improving the manuscript are given below. 1. Statistical analysis section. This section is the key to understanding the statistical analyses performed in the manuscript. Authors should specify how numerical and qualitative data were described. For example, in the case of numerical data, authors should report, the numerical data were reported as mean ad standard deviation, or median and interquartile range [Q1, Q3], in the case of non-normally distributed data. Furthermore, they should report which statistical tests were used and for which analyses. Finally, they should conclude the paragraph by indicating what level of p-value was chosen to consider a test significant, e.g. All tests with p-value <0.05 were considered as significant. 2. A brief description of Tables 3 and 4 in the results should be made 3. Sample and setting section. The authors should better describe how they estimated the sample size, including the values of the parameters used for the calculation. Finally, we note that some of the comments of the Reviewers refer to specific articles for you to cite. Please note that it is not mandatory that you cite these specific articles, and you are welcome to seek alternative manuscripts in the literature that are relevant to your manuscript’s content Best regards. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: GENERAL COMMENT: The manuscript aimed to develop and validate a health education needs assessment for patients with HPV infection using the KANO model. The final product is a fascinating picture of the types of health education needs and the influencing factor of patients with HPV infection to create personalized health education programs. I only suggest a few tips to improve the quality of the manuscript, such as revising the English language and emphasizing some topics. INTRODUCTION: Human papillpn virus (HPV) is a virus with multiple genotypes, which is closely related to the degree of human reproductive system lesions and the development of malignant tumors. Please correct the virus name. It seems that your introduction is too short. Please emphasize more topics, such as the impact of HPV on cervical lesions and the socio-demographic profile of people with sexually transmitted infections. I invite the authors to consider the following works: Calagna G. 'Secondary prevention' against female HPV infection: literature review of the role of carrageenan. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2020 Fasciana T. Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Sexual Behavioral Factors of Patients with Sexually Transmitted Infections Attending a Hospital in Southern Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Reviewer #2: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-32314 Date: 14/09/2024 Title of Manuscript: Development and validation of the health education demand scale for HPV infected patients based on KANO model GENERAL COMMENT: The manuscript contributes to understanding the HPV health education needs from the perspective of the disease, the patient's family, and social, environmental, psychological and other internal and external systems. I believe that the workflow is well-designed and well-structured, but I would like to raise some issues you can find below. I suggest English language editing. INTRODUCTION: Page 1: “Human papillpn virus” Please, correct the spelling. Page 1: “..degree of human reproductive system lesions..” What do you mean by this expression? Page 1: “…cervical cancer is also gradually getting younger...” I understand that you meant that the age of patients suffering from cervical cancer is getting lower, but I believe you should rephrase the sentence. It is not clear enough as it is. Moreover, please put a reference attesting to this data. If you believe it is appropriate, you could expand your references list by citing the following work: Bosco, L., et al. Potential impact of a nonavalent anti HPV vaccine in Italian men with and without clinical manifestations. Sci Rep 11, 4096 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83639-6 ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309630.r001
Revision 1
16 Oct 2024 Author Response Additional Editor Comments: 1. Statistical analysis section. This section is the key to understanding the statistical analyses performed in the manuscript. Authors should specify how numerical and qualitative data were described. For example, in the case of numerical data, authors should report, the numerical data were reported as mean ad standard deviation, or median and interquartile range [Q1, Q3], in the case of non-normally distributed data. Furthermore, they should report which statistical tests were used and for which analyses. Finally, they should conclude the paragraph by indicating what level of p-value was chosen to consider a test significant, e.g. All tests with p-value <0.05 were considered as significant. Responses： Thanks to the editors for their valuable suggestions. The description of quantitative and qualitative data in statistical analysis has been supplemented in the data analysis section of the paper. Qualitative data is expressed as frequency and component ratio (%), and quantitative data conforming to normal distribution is expressed as mean ± standard deviation. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. 2.A brief description of Tables 3 and 4 in the results should be made Responses： Thanks for the valuable suggestions provided by the editor. We have made a brief description of table 3 and table 4 in the paper. Table 3 is the factor analysis result of the positive items, table 4 is the factor analysis result of the reverse items, and we finally focus on the result of table 3 (factor analysis result of the positive items). 3.Sample and setting section. The authors should better describe how they estimated the sample size, including the values of the parameters used for the calculation. Responses： Thanks for the editor's valuable suggestions. We have explained the sample size in the paper. According to Kendall's scale preparation sample size setting rule, the sample size is set to 5-10 times of the scale items, and the factor analysis sample size is set to 10-20 times of the scale items, and 10% sample shedding rate is also considered. Reviewers' comments: 2.Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Response :The data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistical window (version 20.0), and IBM SPSS AMOS (version 23.0). Our data analysis strictly conforms to the steps of the scale compilation, and the collected data are analyzed by project analysis, retest analysis and reliability and validity test, among which the validity test included content validity and structure validity. Reviewer #1: GENERAL COMMENT: The manuscript aimed to develop and validate a health education needs assessment for patients with HPV infection using the KANO model. The final product is a fascinating picture of the types of health education needs and the influencing factor of patients with HPV infection to create personalized health education programs. I only suggest a few tips to improve the quality of the manuscript, such as revising the English language and emphasizing some topics. INTRODUCTION: Human papillpn virus (HPV) is a virus with multiple genotypes, which is closely related to the degree of human reproductive system lesions and the development of malignant tumors. Please correct the virus name. It seems that your introduction is too short. Please emphasize more topics, such as the impact of HPV on cervical lesions and the socio-demographic profile of people with sexually transmitted infections. Response： Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions. We have changed the virus name in the article, and we have added the impact of HPV on cervical lesions and the socio-demographic profile of people with sexually transmitted infections. Reviewer #2: GENERAL COMMENT: The manuscript contributes to understanding the HPV health education needs from the perspective of the disease, the patient's family, and social, environmental, psychological and other internal and external systems. I believe that the workflow is well-designed and well-structured, but I would like to raise some issues you can find below. I suggest English language editing. INTRODUCTION: Page 1: “Human papillpn virus” Please, correct the spelling. Response： Sorry for the spelling error, the spelling of HPV virus has been corrected. Thanks. Page 1: “..degree of human reproductive system lesions..” What do you mean by this expression? Response： We are very grateful to the reviewer for raising such questions, and we have revised the expression to mean that HPV infection is related to the severity of cervical lesions. Page 1: “…cervical cancer is also gradually getting younger...” I understand that you meant that the age of patients suffering from cervical cancer is getting lower, but I believe you should rephrase the sentence. It is not clear enough as it is. Moreover, please put a reference attesting to this data. Response： Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion, we have modified the expression to make it better understood. In addition, we also supplement the relevant evidence. Thanks. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309630.r002
30 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Nicola Serra, Editor PONE-D-24-32314R1Development and validation of the health education demand scale for HPV infected patients based on KANO modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, 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. ==============================Dear Authors, the changes you have made have improved the manuscript. There are only a few comments from Reviewer 2 that the authors should address before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Best regards Nicola Serra============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 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, Nicola Serra Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed 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: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes 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: I believe that the manuscript is well-designed and well-structured, and the quality has been improved. Reviewer #2: The authors have accurately followed the suggestions. However, I would like to make some notes. INTRODUCTION: Page 1: “The higher infection rate of HPV, the more serious of cervical precancerous lesions.” Can I suggest rephrasing the sentence? It would be clearer to exchange the order in something like: “More severe precancerous lesions are associated with higher rates of HPV infection” Page 1: “Additionally, the age-specific distribution of HPV infection showed a bimodal curve, and the trend of younger age was obvious” I believe that you should better explain this observation. What do you mean specifically with “the trend of younger age was obvious”? It seams quite a vague comment. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #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.0309630.r003
Revision 2
7 Nov 2024 Author Response Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #2: The authors have accurately followed the suggestions. However, I would like to make some notes. INTRODUCTION: Page 1: “The higher infection rate of HPV, the more serious of cervical precancerous lesions.” Can I suggest rephrasing the sentence? It would be clearer to exchange the order in something like: “More severe precancerous lesions are associated with higher rates of HPV infection” Page 1: “Additionally, the age-specific distribution of HPV infection showed a bimodal curve, and the trend of younger age was obvious” I believe that you should better explain this observation. What do you mean specifically with “the trend of younger age was obvious”? It seams quite a vague comment. Response :Thank you for your valuable suggestions. For the expression of “The higher infection rate of HPV, the more serious of cervical precancerous lesions.”, we have changed the expression. For the meaning of “the trend of younger age was obvious”, we also made changes to make it clearer. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(2).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309630.r004
3 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Nicola Serra, Editor Development and validation of the health education demand scale for HPV infected patients based on KANO model PONE-D-24-32314R2 Dear Dr. Zhou, 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, Nicola Serra Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, congratulations, your article has been accepted. Best regards, Nicola Serra 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #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 #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 #2: The authors have answered all the issues I previously raised, I do not have any other comment to make. ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309630.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Nicola Serra, Editor PONE-D-24-32314R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, 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. Nicola Serra Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309630.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .