Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 30, 2024 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-24-20331Unveiling the Mediating Role of Cultural Trade and Domestic Identity in Chinese Consumer Engagement with Foreign Films and TV SeriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yuan, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The paper presents a detailed analysis of Chinese consumer behavior towards foreign movies and TV series (FFT) using a robust methodological framework. The results presented are interesting and relevant and the paper can be considered for publication after some corrections and considerations: 1- Revise the abstract, considering suppressing statistical results, and replacing "participants" with "respondents"; 2. Revise the Introduction, considering including the full names of Foreign Movies and TV Series instead of FFT. Make clearer the importance of investigating customer engagement in Foreign Movies and TV Series. It is suggested that the introduction be organized to include the importance of this study, followed by the discussion of the constructs included in this study. This may include the discussion of mediating or moderating variables; 3. Revise the Literature Review, including the relevant theories, clearly indicating which estimation variables are linked to, discussing what are the theoretical gaps/contributions of this study. Try to rewrite this section in a more concise way, making the main arguments more accessible to a wider audience. It is also recommended to include a discussion of the relationship between CV and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik; SPV and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik; and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik and CB; 4. Revise the conceptual framework and methodology, separating the discussion of the measurement of variables; model used for estimation; research design and data collection procedures into different subsections. Make clearer the criteria for selecting interviewees (sampling technique) and how the minimum sample size was determined in this study. Include a discussion of the data collection procedure and measurement items. If higher-order PLS-SEM estimation is used, include the estimation procedure, as well as the multigroup analysis procedure. Include a detailed diagram of the conceptual framework; 5. Revise the discussion and conclusion section, including more clearly all the findings in the results; discuss why each of the relationships is significant/not significant; supported by what previous research, as well as the theoretical and practical implications of this study, as well as the limitations and recommendations for future research. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 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:
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, Angelo Marcelo Tusset 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 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. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments: The paper presents a detailed analysis of Chinese consumer behavior towards foreign movies and TV series (FFT) using a robust methodological framework. The results presented are interesting and relevant and the paper can be considered for publication after some corrections and considerations: 1- Revise the abstract, considering suppressing statistical results, and replacing "participants" with "respondents"; 2. Revise the Introduction, considering including the full names of Foreign Movies and TV Series instead of FFT. Make clearer the importance of investigating customer engagement in Foreign Movies and TV Series. It is suggested that the introduction be organized to include the importance of this study, followed by the discussion of the constructs included in this study. This may include the discussion of mediating or moderating variables; 3. Revise the Literature Review, including the relevant theories, clearly indicating which estimation variables are linked to, discussing what are the theoretical gaps/contributions of this study. Try to rewrite this section in a more concise way, making the main arguments more accessible to a wider audience. It is also recommended to include a discussion of the relationship between CV and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik; SPV and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik; and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik and CB; 4. Revise the conceptual framework and methodology, separating the discussion of the measurement of variables; model used for estimation; research design and data collection procedures into different subsections. Make clearer the criteria for selecting interviewees (sampling technique) and how the minimum sample size was determined in this study. Include a discussion of the data collection procedure and measurement items. If higher-order PLS-SEM estimation is used, include the estimation procedure, as well as the multigroup analysis procedure. Include a detailed diagram of the conceptual framework; 5. Revise the discussion and conclusion section, including more clearly all the findings in the results; discuss why each of the relationships is significant/not significant; supported by what previous research, as well as the theoretical and practical implications of this study, as well as the limitations and recommendations for future research. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: It is an interesting research. However, some recommendations are included for the improvement of the manuscript. 1. Abstract If it is survey type of study, the ‘participants’ should be ‘respondents’. It is suggested that not to include statistic in the abstract. I.e. evidenced by an average monthly expenditure of RMB 141.37. 2. Introduction It is suggested that to use the full name of Foreign Films and TV Series instead of FFT, unless FFT is a commonly accepted initial. It would be good to include why it is critical to investigate customer engagement in Foreign Films and TV Series. i.e. why there is a need to conduct this study? It is suggested that the introduction is organised to include the importance of this study (which includes the research gap or motivation of this study) followed by the discussion of the constructs included in this study. This could include the discussion of mediating or moderation variables. 3. Literature Review It would be good to include the relevant theories in the literature review section. The theories should clearly indicate which variables of estimation are tied to. Also, discuss what are the theoretical gap/ contribution of this study. It would be good to include the discussion of the relationship between CV to CTI, DCIupn and DCIik; SPV to CTI, DCIupn and DCIik; and CTI, DCIupn and DCIik to CB. If possible, use the subsection title to differentiate various relationships. For instance to arrange the relationship according to the subsections for “causal relationships between consumers' perceived values—cultural, practical, and social—of FFT and their subsequent behaviors. It also investigates the mediating roles of CTI0 and DCI0, as well as the moderating effects of consumer characteristics.” 4. Conceptual Framework and Methodology It would be good to separate the discussion of measurement of the variables; model used for estimation; research design and data collection procedures into different subsections. If it is a survey, the “respondents” should be referred to instead of “participants”. What are the respondents’ selection criteria (sampling technique) and how the minimum sample size was determined in this study? The discussion of the procedure of data collection and measurement items are missing. Does higher order PLS-SEM estimation is used? If so, please include the procedure of estimation in this section. Also, include the multi-group analysis procedure. 5. Discussion and Conclusion The discussion should include all the findings of in the results; discuss why each of the relationship is significant/ not significant; supported by which previous research. Also include the theoretical and practical implications of this study as well as the limitations and recommendations of future research. Reviewer #2: Your paper provides an in-depth analysis of Chinese consumer behavior towards foreign films and TV series (FFT) using a robust methodological framework. The study's exploration of cultural trade and domestic identity as mediating factors is a significant contribution to the literature on cultural consumption and consumer behavior in China. I’m including below some strengths and weaknesses (and potential areas for improvement). Strengths: - The manuscript includes an extensive review of existing literature, which sets a strong foundation for the research, it effectively situates the study within the broader context of cultural trade and consumer behavior. - The use of PLS is appropriate for the complex relationships being examined; the study's methodological approach is well-executed and aligns with the research objectives. - The focus on the mediating roles of cultural trade and domestic cultural identity in FFT consumption is innovative and addresses a gap in the current literature. - The collection of primary data from 786 participants and the detailed analysis using descriptive statistics and PLS-SEM provide a robust empirical foundation for the study's findings. - The manuscript offers theoretical contributions by integrating cultural trade and domestic identity into the understanding of consumer behavior, which can have practical implications for marketers and content creators. Some suggestions for improvement: - Some sections of the manuscript, particularly the literature review and conceptual framework, are dense and could benefit from more concise writing; streamlining these sections would improve readability and make the key arguments more accessible to a broader audience. - The manuscript should avoid overly technical language where possible. So, try to simplify some of the statistical explanations to make the research more approachable to readers who may not be familiar with advanced SEM techniques. - While the conceptual framework is well-developed, it could be presented more clearly in the manuscript, so the inclusion of a detailed diagram or visual representation of the framework could help readers better understand the relationships between the variables. - The discussion section should more explicitly connect the findings to the research questions and hypotheses, to clarify how the results contribute to answering the study's primary questions. - There is room for a more critical evaluation of the findings in relation to existing literature. The manuscript could benefit from a deeper discussion on how the results compare to similar studies and what this means for the field. ********** 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-24-20331R1Unveiling the Mediating Role of Cultural Trade and Domestic Identity in Chinese Consumer Engagement with Foreign Films and TV SeriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yuan, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The authors conducted a comprehensive review of the paper, submitting a version that could be accepted for publication after minor considerations: 1- Include the nomenclature of each variable in Table 1; 2- Include a table with the questions from the questionnaire in an appendix to the paper; 3- Justify the choice of variables, age, gender and education, for the MGA analysis; 4- Include after Figure 4, whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected; 5- Consider a discussion section and one just for the conclusion; 6- Make clearer in the conclusions what the contributions of the study are to theoretical and practical aspects, and what the limitations and recommendations for future studies are. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 02 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:
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, Angelo Marcelo Tusset 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. Additional Editor Comments: The authors conducted a comprehensive review of the paper, submitting a version that could be accepted for publication after minor considerations: 1- Include the nomenclature of each variable in Table 1; 2- Include a table with the questions from the questionnaire in an appendix to the paper; 3- Justify the choice of variables, age, gender and education, for the MGA analysis; 4- Include after Figure 4, whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected; 5- Consider a discussion section and one just for the conclusion; 6- Make clearer in the conclusions what the contributions of the study are to theoretical and practical aspects, and what the limitations and recommendations for future studies are. [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: (No Response) 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: 1. Table 1 has been included to explain each of the variables. It would be good to indicate the full name for each of the variables in Table 1. Also, surveys are used to collect data from the respondents. What are the questions for the questionnaire? It would be good to provide the questions (Instruments or items) and the source of the questions in a sperate table or combine with Table 1. 2. For the interpretation such as in page 34 (the writing after Figure 4) does not mention whether the Hypothesis is supported or not supported. 3. Any hypothesis proposed for the analysis of MGA? Why only choose age, gender and education for the MGA analysis? 4. Please separate the Discussion Section with Conclusion Section. For discussion, it would be good to discuss the overall analysis (such as in Figure 2), followed by MGA for age, gender and education. All of the discussion could be supported by the findings of previous studies. 5. What are the implications of this study from theoretical and practical aspects? What are the limitations and recommendations of future study? Reviewer #2: Overall, the authors have improved the manuscript significantly, and it includes more information about its findings and contributions. ********** 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Unveiling the Mediating Role of Cultural Trade and Domestic Identity in Chinese Consumer Engagement with Foreign Films and TV Series PONE-D-24-20331R2 Dear Dr. Wei-Lun Huang, 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, Angelo Marcelo Tusset Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors presented a fully revised version, meeting all the requested corrections and the criteria required for publication of this Journal. After these considerations, I consider the paper accepted in its current form. 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: No Reviewer #2: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-24-20331R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Huang, 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 Professor Angelo Marcelo Tusset 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 .