Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 2, 2025
Decision Letter - Hu Li, Editor

PONE-D-25-23798Influence of main parameters on the displacement process by spontaneous imbibition based on LBMPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lu,

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 Jul 19 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,

Hu Li

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2344223, 12302516,11872365)�the CNPC New Energy Key Project (2021DJ4902); and the High-level Innovation Research Institute Program of Guangdong Province(No.2020B0909010003).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

6. 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. 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: The authors explore the dynamics of imbibition in shale using a color gradient model within the LBM framework combined with a realistic core pore size distribution. This manuscript contributes meaningfully to the field of imbibition in shale by leveraging a novel approach that combines LBM and dimensional analysis. Focusing on in-depth interpretation of the non-monotonic behavior in the studied parameters with respect to the base scenario, this paper has the potential to offer valuable insights for researchers and practitioners interested in multiphase flow in heterogeneous media.

However, there are some questions need to be clarified.

1 I recommend that the authors revise the text to enhance its clarity, addressing punctuation and phrasing issues.

2 In Section 2.1, it'd better to supply a figure to show the D2Q9 model. Furthermore, it is unclear in this section which parameter represents each phase; does the parameter “I” refer to one of them?

3 I suggest the authors to provide some references in recent years in the introduction.

4 During introducing the previous studies, I suggest the authors to supply some analysis of the advantages and disadvantages and limitations of others' studies, which can highlight the characteristics and advantages of this study.

Reviewer #2: I would like to express my gratitude to the editorial team for inviting me to review this manuscript. This manuscript focuses on imbibition front and phase distribution in shale based on LBM method. The topic is very interesting and the structure of manuscript is well organized. The manuscript is acceptable. Some suggestions are provided as following, which may helpful to improve the manuscript.

1. The current format of some figures is suboptimal. The authors need to improve the presentation to enhance clarity and comprehension.

2.Some typo and minor errors need to be revised to improve the English writing.

3. Suggest the authors to analyze further the mechanism of the phenomenon. and to provide some discussions on the research results.

4. The research conducted in the manuscript is intriguing; future studies could consider investigating the influence of additional pore size distribution characteristics on the permeation process.

**********

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

Dear Editors and reviewers:

Thank you very much for all of your comments concerning our manuscript entitled

“Influence of main parameters on the displacement process by spontaneous imbibition based on LBM). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript. We have concerned the comments carefully and made responses and revisions point by point.

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

[Response]: The manuscript has been restructured according to PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

[Response]: LBM(color model) using in this manuscript is a widely used method in multiple fluids flow. No permits are required.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

[Response]: We have supplied the related statement of "Data available statement" after section Conclusions:" The code can be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request."

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2344223, 12302516,11872365)�the CNPC New Energy Key Project (2021DJ4902); and the High-level Innovation Research Institute Program of Guangdong Province(No.2020B0909010003).”

[Response]: We have supplied the statement in "Funding": " The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[Response]: We have supplied the related statement of "Data available statement" after section Conclusions:"

6. 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.

[Response]: We have checked the reference list and corrected the wrong ones and added some references according to the reviewer's suggestion.

________________________________________

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: The authors explore the dynamics of imbibition in shale using a color gradient model within the LBM framework combined with a realistic core pore size distribution. This manuscript contributes meaningfully to the field of imbibition in shale by leveraging a novel approach that combines LBM and dimensional analysis. Focusing on in-depth interpretation of the non-monotonic behavior in the studied parameters with respect to the base scenario, this paper has the potential to offer valuable insights for researchers and practitioners interested in multiphase flow in heterogeneous media.

However, there are some questions need to be clarified.

1 I recommend that the authors revise the text to enhance its clarity, addressing punctuation and phrasing issues.

[Response]: Many thanks for the suggestion.

We have checked the manuscript carefully and revised the English expression. The revised contents are shown in red in the text.

2 In Section 2.1, it'd better to supply a figure to show the D2Q9 model. Furthermore, it is unclear in this section which parameter represents each phase; does the parameter “I” refer to one of them?

[Response]: Many thanks for the reviewer's suggestion.

We have provided a figure of D2Q9 model (See Figure 1) and explain the meaning of phases. "i" represents either "r" or "b", the two fluids, "r" indicates red fluid, "b" indicates blue fluid. These content are supplied in the second paragraph in section 2.2.

Fig.1 Model of D2Q9 ( 0~8 indicate the nine node numbers)

3 I suggest the authors to provide some references in recent years in the introduction.

[Response]: Many thanks for the reviewer's suggestion.

We have supplied some related research papers published in recent years.(Ref. 13-18,26)

13 Wang W, Xie Q, Wang H, Su Y, Rezaei-Gomari S. Pseudopotential-based multiple-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann model for multicomponent and multiphase slip flow. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2023, 9(2): 106-116.

14 Zhang Q, Yang Y, Wang D, Sun H, Zhong J, Yao J, Lisitsa V. Correlations of residual oil distribution with pore structure during the water flooding process in sandstone reservoirs. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2024, 12(2): 113-126.

15 Zhou Y, Guan W, Zhao C, Zou X, He Z, Zhao H. Numerical methods to simulate spontaneous imbibition in microscopic pore structures: A review. Capillarity, 2024, 11(1): 1-21.

16 Wang H, Cai J, Su Y, Jin Z, Wang W, Li G. Imbibition behaviors in shale nanoporous media from pore-scale perspectives. Capillarity, 2023, 9(2): 32-44.

17 Cai J, Jin T, Kou J, Zou S, Xiao J, Meng Q, Lucas–Washburn Equation-Based Modeling of Capillary-Driven Flow in Porous Systems. Langmuir 2021, 37 (5): 1623-1636.

18 Cai J, Qin X, Wang H, Xia Y, Zou S. Pore-scale investigation of forced imbibition in porous rocks through interface curvature and pore topology analysis, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2025, 17(1): 245-257.

26 Lu L, Huang YD, Liu K, Zhang XH, Lu XB. Imbibition front and phase distribution in shale based on Lattice Boltzmann Method. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 2025,142(2): 2173-2190.

4 During introducing the previous studies, I suggest the authors to supply some analysis of the advantages and disadvantages and limitations of others' studies, which can highlight the characteristics and advantages of this study.

[Response]: Many thanks for this suggestion.

We have provided some references and reviews on other's studies. Most of them are shown in section 1. For example:

Wang et al.[13] presented a pseudopotential-based multiple-relaxation-time LBM. This model can study the multicomponent flows with different molecular weights, different viscosities and different Schmidt numbers. Zhang et al.[14] studied the pore scale dynamics of imbibition in heterogeneous sandstone samples using LBM. They have not studied the dynamics of imbibition in other types of rocks. Zhou et al.[15] summarized the numerical simulation methods and research progress of spontaneous imbibition at the micro pore scale, and compared the advantages and disadvantages of various methods. Wang et al.[16] studied the imbibition in nanoporous media using LBM. Cai et al.[17] discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the classic Lucas Washburn equation, as well as its development and applications. Cai et al.[18] studied the interface dynamics and fluid-fluid interactions during imbibition of porous rocks by introducing pore topology measurement. They found the reason of unstable inlet pressure, mass flow rate, and interface curvature.

Reviewer #2: I would like to express my gratitude to the editorial team for inviting me to review this manuscript. This manuscript focuses on imbibition front and phase distribution in shale based on LBM method. The topic is very interesting and the structure of manuscript is well organized. The manuscript is acceptable. Some suggestions are provided as following, which may helpful to improve the manuscript.

1. The current format of some figures is suboptimal. The authors need to improve the presentation to enhance clarity and comprehension.

[Response]: Many thanks for this suggestion.

We have checked all the figures and supplied Figure 1, revised Figure 2, Figure 7 and Figure 10.

Fig. 2 Numerical model of baseline model

Fig.7 Relation between displacement efficiency and Ca

(The fitted curve: �=11.22+0.038e5Ca)

Fig.10 Changes of displacement efficiency of oil with contact angle. The fitted curve is �=9.38+10-3e11�

2.Some typo and minor errors need to be revised to improve the English writing.

[Response]: Many thanks for the suggestion.

We have checked the manuscript carefully and revised the English expression. The revised contents are shown in red in the text.

3. Suggest the authors to analyze further the mechanism of the phenomenon. and to provide some discussions on the research results.

[Response]: Many thanks for this suggestion.

We have further analyzed the results and the mechanism of the phenomenon.(Seen in section 4.4)

4.4 Discussions

From the above results we can see that the development in the small throats is faster than that in the large throats. The path of displacement is strongly affected by the interaction among the throats (i.e., the capillary forces in these throats). According to L-W equation, the imbibition velocity in large throats is larger than that in small throats. However, the numerical results show that the imbibition velocity in small throats are larger because of the larger capillary forces which induce the displacement develops from the small throats to large throats. Therefore, in a pore-fracture network, the interaction among throats/fractures must be considered and the development of displacement in the throats with different radii must be variable. That means, the imbibition in the throats with small radius and small volume will first finish. The apparent imbibition velocity and imbibition mass will decrease gradually, which is coincidence with the experimental results[24].

Because of the non-uniform distribution of pore size, the imbibition interface does not develop smooth. In some cases, channeling path forms and so causes the decrease of displacement efficiency. The reason is that instability of interface is easy to occur in a non-uniform pore network. Here a simple analysis is processed to show the instability condition of imbibition interface.

Analysis is on one dimensional condition for simplicity (Fig. 6): a throat with a length of L is initially full filled with oil. The water is imbibed into it to displace oil. The imbibition interface goes forward. Set the position of interface as �(t). Now let's to analysis the condition of instability.

x=0 water � oil L

Fig. 6 Sketch of the one dimensional model

The controlling equations for describing the water are:

(∂^2 p_w)/(∂x^2 )=0 (9)

x=0, p_w=0; x=ξ, p_w+p_c=p_o, q_w=q_o (10)

The controlling equations for describing the oil are:

(∂^2 p_o)/(∂x^2 )=0 (11)

x=0, p_o=0; x=x,p_w+p_c=p_o, q_w=q_o (12)

The solutions can be obtained as folows:

p_w=ax (x≤ξ) (13)

p_o=cx-cL (x≥ξ) (14)

Instituting these two equations into the condition pw+pc=po and q_w=q_o at x=ξ:

aξ+p_c=cξ-cL (15)

-(KK_rw)/μ_w (∂p_w)/∂x=-(KK_ro)/μ_o (∂p_o)/∂x (16)

So

K_rw/μ_w a= K_ro/μ_o c (17)

Coefficients a, c and d can be obtained as:

c= Mp_c/((M-1)ξ+L), a= p_c/((M-1)ξ-ML) , d=-(Mp_c L)/((M-1)ξ+L) (18)

in which M= (K_rw/μ_w )⁄(K_ro/μ_o ) , named viscosity ratio. The velocity of imbibition interface can be expressed as:

dξ/dt=v=q=-(KK_rw)/μ_w (∂p_w)/∂x=(KK_rw)/μ_w p_c/((M-1)ξ+ML) (19)

If a perturbation � is acted on the intersurface and �<<ξ:

d(ξ+ε)/dt=v=q=-(KK_rw)/μ_w (∂p_w)/∂x=(KK_rw)/μ_w p_c/((M-1)(ξ+ε)+ML) (20)

Then the evolution of the perturbation with time can be obtained as:

dε/dt=(KK_rw)/μ_w (Mp_c)/((M-1)(ξ+ε)+L)-(KK_rw)/μ_w p_c/((M-1)ξ+L) (21)

dε/dt=(Mp_c KK_rw)/μ_w ((M-1)ε/[(M-1)(ξ+ε)+ML][(M-1)ξ+ML] ) (22)

dε/dt=(Mp_c KK_rw)/μ_w ((M-1)ε/[(M-1)ξ+L]^2 ) (23)

Integral of last equation gives the expression of ε with time:

ε=e^((Mp_c KK_rw)/μ_w (((M-1))/[(M-1)ξ+L]^2 )t) (24)

It is shown that the perturbation ε will increases exponentially with time t if the media is water-wetting and M>1. That means, instability of interface or fingering will happen in this case. Since the distribution of pore size is non-uniform, the instability can happen and stop in different positions of the pore network, which leads to the non-uniform interface.

4. The research conducted in the manuscript is intriguing; future studies could consider investigating the influence of additional pore size distribution characteristics on the permeation process.

[Response]: Many thanks for this suggestion.

In the future studies, we will investigate the influence of pore size distribution characteristics on the permeation process to make the results more practicable.

________________________________________

Decision Letter - Hu Li, Editor

Influence of main parameters on the displacement process by spontaneous imbibition based on LBM

PONE-D-25-23798R1

Dear Dr. Lu,

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,

Hu Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Hu Li, Editor

PONE-D-25-23798R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lu,

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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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

Pro.Dr. Hu Li

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 .