Mining and quantitative evaluation of the laboratory biosafety policy in China

Cheng Xiang; Qing Zhu; Jinqing Wen; Lixiang Xie; Rongrong Hao; Xueting Qiu; Fei Zhu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328923

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 4, 2024
12 May 2025 Decision Letter - Sanaullah Sajid, Editor Dear Dr. Zhu, 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 26 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. 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 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, Sanaullah Sajid, M.Phil/PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf . 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 3. 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. 4. 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? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No ****** Reviewer #1: Biosafety management system is not only worth studying in theory, but also in practice. Therefore, the topic of this paper deserves full affirmation. This paper is generally good, from the research method, data application and research content, are commendable. In terms of language and text, it is also necessary to optimize, and it is best to find professional institutions or people for native language modification. In the summary, we should briefly explain the countermeasures and suggestions. The countermeasures and suggestions in the last part of the article can be supplemented with corresponding discussions, like 4 and 5 in a simple sentence, which is a little irresponsible. ****** 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: liu bangfan ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328923.r001
Revision 1
14 Jun 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for your suggestion. As for language, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red and blue in the revised paper. Regarding the suggestions, we have fully considered the reviewers' comments and refined the originally proposed suggestions. In terms of strengthening communication among departments, the original suggestion was to accelerate the formation of a biosafety coordination mechanism, improve the information-sharing mechanism among departments, and establish an efficient working mechanism. Considering the feasibility of the suggestions, we have supplemented the content of regularly convening cross-departmental joint meetings in the revised version to enhance the feasibility of the suggestions. In terms of the policy formulation process, we have mainly made revisions to the language expression without changing the content. Regarding t Enhance supervision of biosafety level 1 and 2 (BSL-1/2) laboratories., considering that the filing system is an important policy for the management of Level 1 and 2 laboratories and that the current main issue lies in the differences in procedures and effectiveness across provinces and cities, we have adjusted the sequence of the two originally proposed suggestions. In terms of leveraging the power of industry associations, the original version only briefly mentioned the rational use of non-governmental forces without clarifying how to bring their roles into play. The revised version has supplemented this content. Regarding the original suggestion to set phased goals for long-term policies, considering that this involves issues related to policy-making procedures, we have deleted this item. The final version was as follows. 1. Strengthen communication among different departments. A clear coordination mechanism and a standardized information-sharing platform should be established for laboratory biosafety. Regular cross-institutional joint meetings can facilitate communication and interaction among departments, ensuring timely transmission and exchange of relevant information. This approach enables effective management and prevents the issuance of duplicate policies across different departments. 2. Optimize the policy formulation process. Before drafting new policies, a comprehensive review of existing policies should be conducted, accompanied by expert discussions, and evidence-based investigations to ensure systemic coherence, logical consistency, and non-redundancy from a holistic perspective. In addition, when issuing policies, efforts should be made to minimize reliance on notifications as the primary format. Converting select notifications into formal documents would enhance their systematicity, stability, sustainability, and enforceability. 3. Enhance supervision of biosafety level 1 and 2 (BSL-1/2) laboratories. A laboratory registration system has been established at the national level for biosafety level 2 laboratories; however, during implantation, registration format, procedures and validity period varies across provinces and cities, and the review process of the management part is also inconsistent[33]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to convene expert panels to develop standardized and implementable registration and management criteria to ensure consistency in the management of low-level biosafety laboratories. Additionally, it is recommended to enhance regulatory measures by formulating corresponding policies—for example, encouraging the adoption of digital technologies in laboratory biosafety management and establishing a unified digital information management system to enable laboratory monitoring, early warning, and post-incident response. 4. Harnessing the power of industry associations. Under the national philosophy of multi-stakeholder collaboration, it is crucial to strategically engage industry forces, particularly by actively guiding industry associations to deeply participate in the development of biosafety quality control standards. This involvement serves to standardize the implementation of laboratory biosafety management protocols. Additionally, regular expert-led inspections of laboratory biosafety can be conducted to monitor and facilitate policy adherence. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328923.r002
9 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Sanaullah Sajid, Editor Mining and quantitative evaluation of the laboratory biosafety policy in China PONE-D-24-55480R1 Dear Dr. Zhu, 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, Sanaullah Sajid, M.Phil/PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: No ****** Reviewer #2: The study is scientifically valid, methodologically rigorous, and ethically sound. It provides a valuable quantitative and qualitative evaluation of laboratory biosafety policies in China, addressing an important public health and policy issue. The analysis is well-structured and supported by robust data. However, minor language and editorial improvements are needed to enhance clarity and readability. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328923.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sanaullah Sajid, Editor PONE-D-24-55480R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhu, 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 Dr. Sanaullah Sajid Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328923.r004

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 .