Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 1, 2025
Decision Letter - Issa Atoum, Editor

PONE-D-25-17433Syntactic denoising and multi-strategy auxiliary enhancement for Aspect-based Sentiment AnalysisPLOS ONE

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.

 As you can see, the reviewers have a concern about missing major sections. Kindly consider all the attached comments attached with this email including those raised by the academic editor.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 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,

Issa Atoum

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 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The Key R&D Program (Science and Technology Cooperation) of Shandong Province (2024KJHZ030).

The Innovation Pilot Project for the Integration of Science, Education, and Industry (2024GH12).

The Innovation Capability Enhancement Project for Science and Technology oriented Small and Medium sized Enterprises in Shandong Province (2024TSGC0903).”

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study is funded by the Key R&D Program (Science and Technology Cooperation)

of Shandong Province (2024KJHZ030), the Innovation Pilot Project for the Integration

of Science, Education, and Industry (2024GH12), and the Innovation Capability

Enhancement Project for Science and Technology oriented Small and Medium sized

Enterprises in Shandong Province (2024TSGC0903).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The Key R&D Program (Science and Technology Cooperation) of Shandong Province (2024KJHZ030).

The Innovation Pilot Project for the Integration of Science, Education, and Industry (2024GH12).

The Innovation Capability Enhancement Project for Science and Technology oriented Small and Medium sized Enterprises in Shandong Province (2024TSGC0903).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

1- Please have a dedicated section for discussion that is aligned with the research objectives.

2- Add a separate section or subsections for threats to validity , limitations and implication of the study.

[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

**********

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 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

**********

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

**********

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 paper presents a novel algorithm and it has outperformed the existing models. The work is state of the art but I recommend a few changes for improving the paper.

Here are the recommendations:

1. The error analysis is not presented in the paper. It is recommended to present it and describe each case.

2. It is not clear if hyperparameter tuning is performed. The authors have presented only one set of hyper parameters of each dataset. Having the same parameters for all the models shows that the hyper parameter tuning is not performed.

3. It is recommended to present the limitations of the work.

4. In the figure only AOSD matrix is presented. What about others? It is recommended to present and compare with others as well.

5. At the end of the related work section mentioning the uniqueness of the work is important. So it will be easier to follow and express the uniqueness properly.

6. The motivation of the work should be mentioned in the introduction and how they have arrived at the approach.

7. The conclusion section is not explicitly mentioned. THough the authors have presented the future work and results. It is suggested to explicitly mention the section.

**********

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: Yes: Chandrakanth Puligundla

**********

[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

Q1: The error analysis is not presented in the paper. It is recommended to present it and describe each case.

Response1:Thanks for your kind suggestion. We have added a specific case error analysis of the proposed model after the ablation experiment. Combining with the visual diagram of the AOSD algorithm can provide a more intuitive understanding of the errors.

Q2: It is not clear if hyperparameter tuning is performed. The authors have presented only one set of hyper parameters of each dataset. Having the same parameters for all the models shows that the hyper parameter tuning is not performed.

Response2: Thanks for your kind suggestion. Our experimental results are all optimal outcomes obtained through hyperparameter tuning. We provide the optimal parameter values of different models, and for the tuning process, we offer a detailed ablation experiment analysis report of the model, including the ablation experiment on the number of attention heads. The hyperparameters of the algorithm in the training process are not the key innovative part of the model.

Q3: It is recommended to present the limitations of the work.

Response3: Thanks for your kind suggestion. Thanks for your kind suggestion. We noticed that the article lacked a description of the model's limitations, and we have added an explanation of the model's limitations in the summary section of the article.

Q4: In the figure only AOSD matrix is presented. What about others? It is recommended to present and compare with others as well.

Response4: Thanks for your kind suggestion. In the ablation experiment of the AOSD algorithm, the original matrix A is the visual diagram of other models, and the matrix M is the AOSD algorithm matrix.

Q5: At the end of the related work section mentioning the uniqueness of the work is important. So it will be easier to follow and express the uniqueness properly.

Response5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have mentioned the uniqueness of this work at the end of the related work section.

Q6: The motivation of the work should be mentioned in the introduction and how they have arrived at the approach.

Response6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The motivation of this work has already been mentioned. It has been highlighted in red in the revised version of the introduction.

Q7: The conclusion section is not explicitly mentioned. THough the authors have presented the future work and results. It is suggested to explicitly mention the section.

Response7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have proposed future work and outcomes, and clearly suggested the direction of future work.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Issa Atoum, Editor

PONE-D-25-17433R1Syntactic denoising and multi-strategy auxiliary enhancement for Aspect-based Sentiment AnalysisPLOS ONE

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.

While the authors have addressed the reviewers’ comments, they have not responded to several key points raised by the Academic Editor. Please ensure that all editorial comments are fully addressed. Furthermore, the manuscript does not currently meet PLOS ONE’s data availability requirements: the provided URLs do not lead to the underlying dataset or source code. Please update the links to ensure direct and unrestricted access to both the data and code, as per the journal's policy. 

Please address all comments constructively and revise the manuscript accordingly. Ensure all figures and tables are embedded within the main text. If any suggestion cannot be fulfilled, provide a clear and reasonable justification. Responses should follow the journal’s format and be submitted in a separate response document, with edits highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. 

=== From previous decision. ===

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 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The Key R&D Program (Science and Technology Cooperation) of Shandong Province (2024KJHZ030).

The Innovation Pilot Project for the Integration of Science, Education, and Industry (2024GH12).

The Innovation Capability Enhancement Project for Science and Technology oriented Small and Medium sized Enterprises in Shandong Province (2024TSGC0903).”

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study is funded by the Key R&D Program (Science and Technology Cooperation)

of Shandong Province (2024KJHZ030), the Innovation Pilot Project for the Integration

of Science, Education, and Industry (2024GH12), and the Innovation Capability

Enhancement Project for Science and Technology oriented Small and Medium sized

Enterprises in Shandong Province (2024TSGC0903).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The Key R&D Program (Science and Technology Cooperation) of Shandong Province (2024KJHZ030).

The Innovation Pilot Project for the Integration of Science, Education, and Industry (2024GH12).

The Innovation Capability Enhancement Project for Science and Technology oriented Small and Medium sized Enterprises in Shandong Province (2024TSGC0903).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

1- Please have a dedicated section for discussion that is aligned with the research objectives.

2- Add a separate section or subsections for threats to validity , limitations and implication of the study.

==

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 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,

Issa Atoum

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: Chandrakanth Puligundla

**********

[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

Response Letter

Dear editors and reviewers,

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled “Syntactic denoising and multi-strategy auxiliary enhancement for Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis” (ID: “PONE-D-25-17433”). Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. In the following, the responses to all the comments are provided one by one.

We have tried our best to make all the revisions clear, and we hope that the revised manuscript can satisfy the requirements for publication.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author.

Yunhai Zhu

Response to the comments of Editor

Editor Comment 1:Please have a dedicated section for discussion that is aligned with the research objectives.

Response :We appreciate this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have created a standalone section titled "Discussion" that explicitly aligns with the research objectives. This section highlights how the proposed SDMAE method addresses the two primary challenges identified in the study—syntactic noise interference and inefficient semantic-syntactic integration. We further elaborate on the performance impact of each component (AOSD and MAAM) through empirical evidence, ensuring that the discussion is directly connected to the research goals.

Editor Comment 2:Add a separate section or subsections for threats to validity, limitations, and implication of the study.

Response:Thank you for pointing this out. In response, we have reorganized and expanded the original text into a dedicated section titled “Threats to Validity and Limitations”, which now includes clearly defined subsections addressing:

Construct Validity: discussing possible annotation bias and the generalization of syntactic rules.

Internal Validity: detailing hyperparameter tuning and overfitting risks.

External Validity: clarifying the limitations in generalizing beyond English review data.

Limitations of SDMAE: covering sentiment knowledge coverage, complex sentence structure handling, and domain adaptability.

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1

Q1: The error analysis is not presented in the paper. It is recommended to present it and describe each case.

Response1:Thanks for your kind suggestion. We have added a specific case error analysis of the proposed model after the ablation experiment. Combining with the visual diagram of the AOSD algorithm can provide a more intuitive understanding of the errors.

Q2: It is not clear if hyperparameter tuning is performed. The authors have presented only one set of hyper parameters of each dataset. Having the same parameters for all the models shows that the hyper parameter tuning is not performed.

Response2: Thanks for your kind suggestion. Our experimental results are all optimal outcomes obtained through hyperparameter tuning. We provide the optimal parameter values of different models, and for the tuning process, we offer a detailed ablation experiment analysis report of the model, including the ablation experiment on the number of attention heads. The hyperparameters of the algorithm in the training process are not the key innovative part of the model.

Q3: It is recommended to present the limitations of the work.

Response3: Thanks for your kind suggestion. Thanks for your kind suggestion. We noticed that the article lacked a description of the model's limitations, and we have added an explanation of the model's limitations in the summary section of the article.

Q4: In the figure only AOSD matrix is presented. What about others? It is recommended to present and compare with others as well.

Response4: Thanks for your kind suggestion. In the ablation experiment of the AOSD algorithm, the original matrix A is the visual diagram of other models, and the matrix M is the AOSD algorithm matrix.

Q5: At the end of the related work section mentioning the uniqueness of the work is important. So it will be easier to follow and express the uniqueness properly.

Response5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have mentioned the uniqueness of this work at the end of the related work section.

Q6: The motivation of the work should be mentioned in the introduction and how they have arrived at the approach.

Response6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The motivation of this work has already been mentioned. It has been highlighted in red in the revised version of the introduction.

Q7: The conclusion section is not explicitly mentioned. THough the authors have presented the future work and results. It is suggested to explicitly mention the section.

Response7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have proposed future work and outcomes, and clearly suggested the direction of future work.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx
Decision Letter - Issa Atoum, Editor

Syntactic denoising and multi-strategy auxiliary enhancement for Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis

PONE-D-25-17433R2

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,

Issa Atoum

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please adjust the alignment of the lines to ensure they are justified on both sides, and embed the script code link directly within the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Issa Atoum, Editor

PONE-D-25-17433R2

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. Issa Atoum

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 .