Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 24, 2024
Decision Letter - Folusho Balogun, Editor

PONE-D-24-59459Public Health Implications of Introducing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in Pakistan: A protocol for mixed method study to explore community perceptions and health system preparednessPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Noreen,

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:

Edit the content of the manuscript to correct the numerous grammatical errors.

The proposed sampling is not clear.

Specify the age of adolescents of interest, if it is 9 to 16 years or 9 to 17 years.

Merge the analysis for belief, hesitancy and knowledge to avoid the current repetitions in the manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 07 2025 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,

Folusho Mubowale Balogun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

5. 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 manuscript needs to be edited as it presently has many grammatical errors.

The sampling is not clear.

Specify if the age of interest for the adolescent s is 9 to 16 years or 9 to 17 years.

Merge the data analysis for belief, hesitancy and knowledge instead of the current repetitions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: * The Aim of the paper is not aligned to the objectives.

* Obj1 does not refer to girls yet in the body 2.3 the girls are in the inclusion criteria. Correct and be consistent.

*Rephrase 2.3 to Only those who give consent after recruitment will form part of the sample.

* 2.4 The sampling strategy is not clear how will random sampling occur on social media platforms, or in schools.

* It confusing how will sample frame be from a university? are there girls aged 6-16 years. Please be consistent with the age group ; elsewhere it is 9-16 and some places 9-17 years.

* A reference is mentioned in the sample size calculation without mention of this reference.

* What do you mean by 'Cast" in 2.5 paragraph, elaborate.

* How will data collection on social media platforms be controlled? there are concerns of duplication or same people answering more than once.

QUALITATIVE PHASE

* Will data collection use IDIs or FGDs or both? it is not clear which one, please delineate and explain where each will be used.

Please correct the methodological errors to make the method replicable for use in other settings.

The protocol and the study will provide valuable contribution to the scientific community.

Reviewer #2: State Data Sharing plan

Revise Methodology to elucidate data gathering process for each stakeholder group (i.e one for parents, one for potential vaccinees, and so on)

**********

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:  Prof Yolanda Malele-Kolisa

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-24-59459)

Public Health Implications of Introducing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in Pakistan: A protocol for mixed method study to explore community perceptions and health system preparedness

PLOS ONE

Dear editor,

Pls find the modified manuscript. We have incorporated all suggestions recommended by the reviewers’. Following is the point-wise reply to the reviewers' comments.

With best regards,

Dr Noreen

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Edit the content of the manuscript to correct the numerous grammatical errors.

The proposed sampling is not clear.

Specify the age of adolescents of interest, if it is 9 to 16 years or 9 to 17 years.

Merge the analysis for belief, hesitancy and knowledge to avoid the current repetitions in the manuscript.

==============================

Response to Comments :

�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'.

Reply : rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer is uploaded as separate file

�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'.

Reply : A marked-up copy of manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version is uploaded as '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'.

Reply: unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes is uploaded as Manuscript

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

Reply: Manuscript is prepared according to journal requirement

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

Reply : Title page added in main document

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Reply : Ethics statement added in method section of manuscript

4.Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

Reply : Figures removed from main manuscript

5. 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.

Reply :Added accordingly

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript needs to be edited as it presently has many grammatical errors.

Reply : Manuscript edited grammatical errors corrected

The sampling is not clear.

Reply: Sampling is revised

Specify if the age of interest for the adolescent s is 9 to 16 years or 9 to 17 years.

Reply :Age is specified 9-16 years

Merge the data analysis for belief, hesitancy and knowledge instead of the current repetitions.

Reply :Data analysis for belief and knowledge is merged

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reply : Thank you for comment

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reply : Manuscript is thoroughly revised to further improve the quality

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reply : Methodology is revised in detail as per reviewers comments

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reply : Statement is added that all data will be freely available without restriction

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

Reply : Thank you for comment

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: * The Aim of the paper is not aligned to the objectives.

Reply : Aim is revised

Reply: Aim is revised “To understand multifaceted sociocultural and contextual factors influencing the uptake of HPV to support launch of HPV Vaccination in Pakistan “

* Obj1 does not refer to girls yet in the body 2.3 the girls are in the inclusion criteria. Correct and be consistent.

Reply :Data will be collected for Objective 1 &3 , girls are part of objective 3

*Rephrase 2.3 to Only those who give consent after recruitment will form part of the sample.

Reply :Rephrased accordingly

* 2.4 The sampling strategy is not clear how will random sampling occur on social media platforms, or in schools.

Reply : Sampling strategy is revised and convenience and random sampling mentioned separately

* It confusing how will sample frame be from a university? are there girls aged 6-16 years. Please be consistent with the age group ; elsewhere it is 9-16 and some places 9-17 years.

Reply : Its replaced with educational institution

* A reference is mentioned in the sample size calculation without mention of this reference.

Reply :Since no previous literature avaialable so its taken as 50% . Statement is rephrased to make it more clear and explicit.

* What do you mean by 'Cast" in 2.5 paragraph, elaborate.

Reply :removed

* How will data collection on social media platforms be controlled? there are concerns of duplication or same people answering more than once.

Reply :Data will be collected through REDCap to avoid duplication Details of data collection added

QUALITATIVE PHASE

* Will data collection use IDIs or FGDs or both? it is not clear which one, please delineate and explain where each will be used.

Reply :

Each one explained separately

Please correct the methodological errors to make the method replicable for use in other settings.

The protocol and the study will provide valuable contribution to the scientific community.

Reply : Thank you for your comment , methodological error corrected as per guidance

Reviewer #2: State Data Sharing plan

Reply :Data Sharing plan added

Revise Methodology to elucidate data gathering process for each stakeholder group (i.e one for parents, one for potential vaccinees, and so on)

Reply : data gathering process for each stakeholder group added seperately

Decision Letter - Folusho Balogun, Editor

PONE-D-24-59459R1Public Health Implications of Introducing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in Pakistan: A protocol for mixed method study to explore community perceptions and health system preparedness

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Khola Noreen,

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:

Thank you for addressing almost all the issues raised in the earlier submission. However, there are few important aspects that still need attention and they are as follows:

1. The English needs further editing. Many definite and indefinite articles are missing in the text.Avoid mixing both American and British English. Stick to one.

2. The Aim is to look at factors influencing the uptake of HPV vaccine, not HPV. Correct this.

3. Objective 2: be specific about the country (Pakistan in this case)

4. Objective 3: be specific about the community.

5. Under HPV Vaccination belief subheading, HBM should be written in full at first use.

6. Qualitative data: This data was to be collected till data saturation is achieved. However, the authors stated that only 4 FGDs will be conducted with the KIIs. Please, reconcile these to clearly show how sample size will be determined.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by April 12, 2025. 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,

Folusho Mubowale Balogun

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.]

[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

Dear Editor,

We are thankful to the worthy reviewers for sparing their valuable time to review our manuscript. Please find the description and justification of point-to-point comments and line .

S.# Comment Response Reply/Changes

1 The English needs further editing. Many definite and indefinite articles are missing in the text.Avoid mixing both American and British English. Stick to one.

Document is thoroughly reviewed and edited

Throughout document

2 The Aim is to look at factors influencing the uptake of HPV vaccine, not HPV. Correct this.

Corrected Page 6

Line 186-187

3 Objective 2: be specific about the country (Pakistan in this case

Added accordingly Page 6

Line 190-191

4 Objective 3: be specific about the community Specific community setting added in objective and methodology both

Page 6 Line 192-193

Page 7 Line 225-226

5 Under HPV Vaccination belief subheading, HBM should be written in full at first use.

Added in full form Page 8

Line 271

6 Qualitative data: This data was to be collected till data saturation is achieved. However, the authors stated that only 4 FGDs will be conducted with the KIIs. Please, reconcile these to clearly show how sample size will be determined.

Sample size for qualitative data is determined by data saturation , a point where new information no longer contributes to understanding of phenomena of interest, our initial sample size are based on normal saturation points in comparable research30. Since point of saturation cannot be predicted in advance so we planed to recruit minimum of 25-30 caregivers and potential recipients , 8-10 policy makers and 25-30 healthcare providers which is in accordance with the typical points of data saturation reported in qualitative studies31. However we are willing to modify our sample size if needed, and we will continue to recruit until saturation is reached to ensure a indepth knowledge of the factors influencing HPV vaccine uptake.

Page 11

Line 370-378

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewer 2 review.docx
Decision Letter - Folusho Balogun, Editor

Public Health Implications of Introducing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in Pakistan: A protocol for mixed method study to explore community perceptions and health system preparedness

PONE-D-24-59459R2

Dear Dr. Khola Noreen,

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,

Folusho Mubowale Balogun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Folusho Balogun, Editor

PONE-D-24-59459R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Noreen,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Folusho Mubowale Balogun

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 .