PONE-D-24-50095Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alshawsh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 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,

Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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

[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

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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:  Dear Authors,

When I reviewed your article titled "Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" that you applied as a study protocol, I believe that it is a protocol that can be beneficial to the field of study, except for some minor corrections mostly related to the introduction part of your article.

You can find the corrections I suggested for your article below:

1- Citation is required for the information you provided in lines 38-41.

2- Your reference to the information you provided in lines 42-44 (citation number 3) is irrelevant. It should be cited with an appropriate study.

3- Your reference to the information you provided in lines 44-47 (citation number 4) is a quote from the introduction part of the reference article. The referenced article wrote this information by referencing other studies. It would be more accurate if you also referenced these studies. Likewise, when citing a reference, it would be more appropriate in terms of scientific work ethics to cite the method or results of the referred study.

4- Your reference to the information you provided in lines 58-60 (citation number 6) is a quote from the introduction of the reference article. My previous comment is also valid for this criticism.

5- Your reference to the information you provided in lines 60-62 (citation number 7) is irrelevant. It should be cited with an appropriate study.

6- Only one article was cited for the long and detailed information in lines 63-77. When the relevant reference was examined, it was seen that it did not fully cover the detailed information provided. The information provided should be supported with more appropriate articles by including the information in line 78 and cited.

7- The information provided in lines 93-34 is related to the fact that bacterial probiotics are more remarkable than probiotic yeasts as a supplement in gastrointestinal diseases. The relevant claim is a controversial issue, and citation no. 12 does not refer to this information. It should be cited with an appropriate article or the claim should be removed from the publication.

8- The sentence in lines 104-106 begins with "The purpose of this systematic review is...." Since this article is a study protocol article, the sentence should also start with the purpose of this study protocol. In addition, the rest of the sentence should be revised accordingly.

Reviewer #2:  Reviewer comment

1. Yes, the manuscript provides a valid rationale for the proposed study with clearly identified and justified research questions. The introduction outlines the academic problem gastrointestinal disorders and the role of probiotics in their management while emphasizing the need for a systematic review to compare bacterial and yeast probiotics. The research question is well-defined, focusing on the comparative effectiveness of these probiotic types, and is justified by the gaps in existing literature. The methodology is good, employing randomized controlled trials and critical appraisal tools to ensure reliability.

2. Yes, But still it needs some clarification because the protocol does not explicitly mention whether a formal power analysis has been conducted to determine the required sample size for meaningful statistical comparisons. While meta-analyses often rely on available studies, an estimation of expected effect sizes and required study numbers would strengthen the methodological justification. Additionally, although heterogeneity is acknowledged using the I² test, further details on managing substantial heterogeneity (>65%), such as subgroup analyses or meta-regression, would be beneficial. Lastly, the manuscript does not clearly indicate which analyses, if any, will be exploratory. Clarifying whether certain comparisons, such as probiotic strain-specific effects, are secondary or exploratory would enhance transparency.

3. Yes, however it is important addressing a few areas. First, it does not mention whether sample size estimation or power analysis has been performed, which is essential for ensuring the reproducibility and robustness of the study. Including a discussion on expected effect sizes or the number of studies needed would enhance the overall clarity and rigor. Additionally, while the protocol suggests contacting authors to handle missing data, it would be useful to specify alternative methods, such as imputation strategies, in case responses are not obtained.

4. Yes, but the authors could specify where the final dataset will be deposited. This would strengthen compliance with open data requirements.

5. Yes, the manuscript is intelligible and written in Standard English, but minor grammatical and stylistic improvements would enhance clarity and readability. It would benefit from professional proofreading or language editing before submission.

Reviewer #3:  Review report on “Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-50095

Alsalem et al. have designed a systematic review protocol using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effects of probiotic bacteria and yeast in patients with gastrointestinal diseases to identify the most effective type of probiotics for different gastrointestinal disorders, that may potentially enhance treatment outcomes with reduced healthcare costs. Regarding the protocol, I have a few concerns, which I am mentioning below:

1. The authors chose to apply “randomized clinical trials (RCTs)” in their study. They should at least define this approach in the background or upfront in the paper (not in the study design). They should also discuss about its pros and cons in brief.

In this context, we already know that in RCTs, the two or more groups of people in each trial should be as similar as possible, except for the received treatments, to ensure that any difference in the outcomes between the groups are solely due to the treatments they received. Since the authors aim to consider participants of any age or any gender or any ethnicity in these trials, I suspect that they will end up with extremely small (n = 2 to 10) sample size in only one group (received treatment group) for a specific age or gender in a few cases. Do they think that applying RCTs will help in drawing a fair unbiased conclusion in those cases? In other words, how will they deal with selection bias in that case? Which statistics they propose to apply for that comparative analysis?

2. I understand that the authors do not intend to apply any statistics to deal with the missing data, since it may introduce biases itself. However, the authors’ original plan to contact the first authors of the published papers for this systematic review protocol, seems to be an incompetent approach to deal with the missing data, especially when the publications are older (for ex., 4 to 10 years old publications). This solution may work if they consider mostly recent publications. What will be the impact of publication bias in that case? Otherwise, how do the authors plan to avoid attrition bias?

3. “After the removal of duplicate articles, studies will be classified into three categories: relevant, irrelevant, or uncertain” – which criteria help to identify uncertain articles? Please clarify.

4. “there remains a gap in synthesizing the most effective strains and dosages, which this review aims to address” – I understand that the designed protocol may help to identify the best type of probiotics for different gastrointestinal disorders. How does this protocol help to select appropriate dosage of probiotics with the available sample sizes for a specific gender or age?

5. How does Review Manager help in the meta-analyses? Please clarify this section step by step in the manuscript for the general readers.

Minor concerns:

1. Authors should briefly explain different tools or scores for the ease of general readers. For e.g., instead of mentioning only ‘Rayyan’ platform, the authors could write – “AI-powered ‘Rayyan’ platform, that is designed to streamline systematic literature reviews by identifying relevant studies quickly since it reduces screening time up to 90%”.

2. In line no. 243 of page no.10, the authors mention about ‘number of arms’. What does it mean?

3. How do the participant characteristics, i.e., the number of withdrawals with/without reasons (line 245 of page no. 10) help in this protocol?

4. The background lacks adequate references against most of the statements from previous findings. In many cases, they did not even provide a single reference (e.g., line no. 52 to 54 of page 3). For instance, when the authors mention “a variety of studies” (line no. 39 to 41 of page 2) or “several clinical trials and experimental studies” (line no. 90 to 92 of page 4), they should at least provide two or three references against their statements.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-50095R1Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammed Abdullah Alshawsh,

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  Jun 04 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,

Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD

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. 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Dear Authors,

When I reviewed your revised article titled "Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" that you applied as a study protocol, again, I believe that it is a protocol that can be beneficial to the field of study. Except for my 3rd criticism (maybe you missed), I see the minor corrections that I suggested, mostly done. Therefore, I repeat my words: “The referenced article wrote this information by referencing other studies. It would be more accurate if you also referenced these studies. Likewise, when citing a reference, it would be more appropriate in terms of scientific work ethics to cite the method or results of the referred study.” I suggest one last minor correction that I suggested to you before. After that last correction, there won't be any additional criticism from me.

To remind my 3rd criticism (for the 1st version of your manuscript):

"3- Your reference to the information you provided in lines 44-47 (citation number 4) is a quote from the introduction part of the reference article. The referenced article wrote this information by referencing other studies. It would be more accurate if you also referenced these studies. Likewise, when citing a reference, it would be more appropriate in terms of scientific work ethics to cite the method or results of the referred study."

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. The proposed study addresses a relevant and timely topic and has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the field.

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the authors for their efforts into revising the manuscript. Besides the major issues, the authors also worked on the minor issues. They have given proper justifications for the questions I asked and made changes at places in the manuscript to make it easier to follow. I am happy with the current version of the manuscript, and I thank the authors for their thorough revisions.

**********

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: Yes:  Addis Tekaw Birhenie

Reviewer #3: 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.

Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PONE-D-24-50095R2

Dear Dr. Mohammed Abdullah Alshawsh,

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,

Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above 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: Dear Authors,

When I reviewed your revised article titled "Probiotic Bacteria vs. Yeast for Gastrointestinal Diseases Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" that you applied as a study protocol, again, I believe that it is a protocol that can be beneficial to the field of study. I see the minor corrections that I suggested, done. Thanks for your attention.

**********

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

**********