Community-based health insurance dropout and its determinants among women in Sidama National Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2024: A multilevel analysis

Kare Chawicha Debessa; Keneni Gutema Negeri; Mesay Hailu Dangisso

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0329382

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 25, 2025
30 May 2025 Decision Letter - Abdene Weya Kaso, Editor Dear Dr. Debessa, 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 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. 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, Abdene Weya Kaso, MPH 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [This study was financially supported by the Sidama National Regional Health Bureau.The funding organization had no role in the conceptualization, design, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication.]. Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please note that 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. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information . [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: 1.This study is interested in dropout from CBHI and it determinants. Out of 835 respondents interviewed, only 77 (9.22%) respondents who dropped were part of this study. Remaining 91% have not dropped out, and so may not provide adequate reasons for dropout. One of the major inclusion criteria for this study could have been to include mainly those who dropped out of CBHI. 2. A study like this could have benefit more through qualitative study that will examine drop out rate and its determinants especially through those that dropped out and other stakeholders. 3. Result section of this study contained so much descriptive, knowing that such will be supported with Tables or figures. 4. Table 1 in the paper did not present the socioeconomic demographics adequately. For instance, from the sample size determination, the authors showed the region, the city administrations and urban-rural divides. These could have been presented in Table 1 to enable the reader understand the study components. 5. In lines 180-182, reliability and validity of instruments cannot be achieved together through Cronbatch's Alpha. The authors need to make a clear distinction between reliability and validity processes and their results. 6. Again the paper dwelt so much on the analysis model specifications than the actual results. For instance, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, Model comparison and selection criteria etc are not very important for reader's comprehension of the study. 7. Table 4 and its descriptive are not aligned. While the descriptive contained the p-values, the Table itself does not contain p-values, which is very important in statistical inference. 8.Some sentences were repeated over and over from the abstract to the result section. For example, cross-sectional analysis from December 2023 to January 2024. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Your manuscript addresses a critical topic with significant relevance for national projects and policymakers. To enhance the quality and impact of your work, please consider the following suggestions: 1. Grammatical and Formatting Review: A thorough proofreading is necessary to correct grammatical errors and improve readability. 2. Typographical and Formatting Issues: There are instances of missing spaces, incorrect capitalisation, and inconsistent reference formatting. 3. Line 210: What are other factors for your exclusion? 3. Figures & Tables: Some figures (e.g., Figure 1) lack clear titles explaining what is being measured. 4. Similarity of the first paragraph of the results and the discussion. 5. Expanding the discussion on CBHI dropout rate challenges (particularly for women) 6. Your sampling technique was multistage. How did you consider the design effect? ****** 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: Gelgelo Wodessa ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329382.r001
Revision 1
5 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Kaso, Academic Editor PLOS ONE Thank you for your detailed feedback and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Community-based health insurance dropout and its determinants among women in Sidama National Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2024: A multilevel analysis” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-06190). We have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and the editorial team. In response, we have revised the manuscript and prepared the following files for resubmission: • A response letter detailing how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed (“Response to Reviewers”) • A revised manuscript with tracked changes (“Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”) • A clean version of the revised manuscript (“Manuscript”) All files have been uploaded according to PLOS ONE’s submission guidelines. We believe these revisions have strengthened our manuscript, and we sincerely appreciate the constructive feedback that guided these improvements. Should you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Kare Chawicha Debessa The corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329382.r002
26 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Abdene Weya Kaso, Editor Dear Dr. Debessa, 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 Aug 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. 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, Abdene Weya Kaso, MPH 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. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors have taken time to address the issues raised in the initial review. For instance, they have included levels of statistical significance in the study. They have also included more variables of importance in the Table 1. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Thank you for your thoughtful revisions and for addressing the previous feedback. Your manuscript has undergone significant improvements in terms of structure, clarity, and depth. The additional explanations and refinements enhance the study’s quality, but I have a few further suggestions to strengthen your work. General Comments: • Proofread language and grammar to enhance clarity. • Your abstract requires revision for clarity, particularly concerning the use of abbreviations and methods. • The background needs thorough revisions; some paragraphs convey the same message. Paragraphs beginning at line numbers 144, 152, and 156 would be better merged into a single paragraph. This approach applies to all background sections to better illustrate what dropout and the factors influencing enrolment among women look like, from a global perspective down to the Sidama region context. • There is inconsistency in the dropout rate, which is stated as 9.2% in the abstract and 9% in the figure. • It would be more effective to describe your study area in one paragraph rather than delving into details about the selection and justification of the Woredas, which are part of the sampling procedure. • The current sample size reported in the abstract and the document significantly differ. There are three different sample sizes mentioned within one document. Why is that? Also, what is your sampling technique? Previously, you mentioned that the multistage sampling technique was utilised. If you are to employ the clustering sampling technique within a multistage sampling technique, you might include all women in a kebele. How many women are there in one kebele? In clustering, all members of the cluster are included in the sample size. • Line 254: If more than one woman is present in the house, how was one woman selected? • Regarding your discussion, state your statistically significant findings, then compare, justify and recommend its impacts. • Conclude your main finding with a recommendation to practitioners, policy and decision makers. ****** 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: Eric Obikeze Reviewer #2: Yes: Gelgelo Wodessa ******** [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.0329382.r003
Revision 2
2 Jul 2025 Author Response A point–by–point response to reviewers’ comments and journal requirements Reviewer comments Reviewer #1 Comments 1: All comments have been addressed. Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and are pleased that our revisions have satisfactorily addressed all comments. We appreciate the reviewer’s time and thoughtful input, which have helped improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewer #2 Comment 1: Proofread language and grammar to enhance clarity. Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this important comment, which aligns with the journal’s language and clarity requirements. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve grammar, sentence structure, and overall readability. We trust that the revised version now meets the expected standard of written academic English. Comment 2: Your abstract requires revision for clarity, particularly concerning the use of abbreviations and methods. Authors’ response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the abstract to improve clarity and flow, especially in the description of methods. Abbreviations have been minimized or spelled out on first use to ensure accessibility for a broad readership. We believe the revised abstract now accurately reflects the objectives, methods, and key findings of the study. Comment 3: The background needs thorough revisions; some paragraphs convey the same message. Paragraphs beginning at line numbers 144, 152, and 156 would be better merged into a single paragraph. This approach applies to all background sections to better illustrate what dropout and the factors influencing enrolment among women look like, from a global perspective down to the Sidama region context. Authors’ response: Thank you for this insightful and constructive comment. We have carefully revised the background section to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Specifically, we merged the paragraphs beginning at lines 144, 152, and 156 into a single, more concise paragraph that flows logically from the global context to the regional focus in Sidama. This restructuring was also applied throughout the background section to strengthen the narrative and provide a clearer, integrated overview of dropout and the factors influencing enrolment among women. Comment 4: There is an inconsistency in the dropout rate, which is stated as 9.2% in the abstract and 9% in the figure. Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We have corrected the dropout rate in the abstract to reflect the accurate figure of 9%, ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript. Comment 5: It would be more effective to describe your study area in one paragraph rather than delving into details about the selection and justification of the Woredas, which are part of the sampling procedure. Authors’ response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the study area section to provide a concise description. The detailed explanation regarding the selection and justification of the Woredas has been moved to the sampling procedure section, where it is more appropriate. This restructuring improves the flow and clarity of the Methods section. Comment 6: The current sample size reported in the abstract and the document significantly differs. There are three different sample sizes mentioned within one document. Why is that? Also, what is your sampling technique? Previously, you mentioned that the multistage sampling technique was utilized. If you are to employ the clustering sampling technique within a multistage sampling technique, you might include all women in a kebele. How many women are there in one kebele? In clustering, all members of the cluster are included in the sample size. Authors’ response: Thank you for raising this important point. We apologize for any confusion caused by the discrepancies in the reported sample sizes. Upon review, we identified that the differences stemmed from reporting the initial target sample size and the final analyzed sample. We have now standardized the sample size reporting throughout the manuscript, ensuring the same number is consistently presented in the abstract, methods, and results. Regarding the sampling technique, we used a multistage sampling approach, which included clustering at the kebele level. However, rather than including all women within each selected kebele cluster, a simple random sampling technique was applied to select eligible women within those clusters to meet the calculated sample size. The average number of eligible women per kebele varies; hence, sampling within clusters was necessary to maintain the study’s feasibility and statistical power. We have clarified these details in the Methods section to accurately describe the sampling framework, including the number of women per kebele and the sampling steps taken. Comment 7: Line 254: If more than one woman is present in the house, how was one woman selected? Authors’ response: Thank you for this important question. When more than one eligible woman was present in a household, we used the lottery method to select one participant randomly. Each eligible woman was assigned a unique number, and one number was drawn at random to choose the respondent. This method ensured an unbiased and fair selection process within households. We have clarified this procedure in the revised Methods section of the revised manuscript. Comment 8: Regarding your discussion, state your statistically significant findings, then compare, justify, and recommend their impacts. Authors’ response: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have revised the Discussion section to highlight the statistically significant findings from our study. Each key result is now explicitly stated, followed by a comparison with relevant literature to contextualize our findings. We provide justifications for observed patterns based on existing context. Additionally, we included practical recommendations and implications for policy and practice, emphasizing how these findings can inform interventions to reduce dropout rates and improve enrollment among women in the Sidama region. Comment 9: Conclude your main finding with a recommendation to practitioners, policymakers, and decision makers. Authors’ response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have revised the Conclusion section to summarize the main findings and added specific, actionable recommendations directed at practitioners, policymakers, and decision makers. Journal requirements Requirement 1: 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. Authors’ response: Thank you for this important reminder. We have carefully reviewed our reference list to ensure it is complete, accurate, and up to date. We have verified that none of the cited references have been retracted. As a result, no citations of retracted articles remain in the manuscript. We also corrected minor formatting inconsistencies and ensured adherence to the journal’s reference style. A revised reference list has been included in the updated manuscript, and all changes have been tracked. Thank you for your guidance. Requirement 2: Submit a rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). Authors’ response: A detailed rebuttal letter has been prepared and submitted as a separate document. It includes responses to each comment raised by the academic editor and reviewers, along with explanations of all changes made to the manuscript. Requirement 3: Submit a marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. Authors’ response: A marked-up copy of the manuscript highlighting all changes made in response to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments has been prepared and is submitted alongside this letter. All modifications are indicated using track changes for ease of review. Requirement 4: Submit an unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. Authors’ response: An unmarked, clean version of the revised manuscript without tracked changes has been prepared and is submitted along with the marked-up copy and rebuttal letter. Requirement 5: If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Authors’ response: We do not wish to make any changes to our financial disclosure statement, as the information previously submitted in the online system is accurate and complete. Requirement 6: Data Availability: The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exceptions. Authors’ response: We confirm that all data underlying the findings of this study are fully available and have already been provided within the manuscript and its supplementary files, per the PLOS Data Policy. Requirement 7: Language and Clarity: The manuscript must be presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Authors’ response: We have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript to improve language, clarity, and readability. The revised version has been edited for grammar and overall flow to ensure it meets the standard of written academic English. We hope the updated manuscript now meets the journal’s expectations for language quality. Requirement 8: Laboratory Protocols (if applicable): Deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance reproducibility. Authors’ response: This study does not involve any laboratory-based procedures; therefore, no laboratory protocols apply for submission to protocols.io. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers two.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329382.r004
16 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Abdene Weya Kaso, Editor Community-based health insurance dropout and its determinants among women in Sidama National Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2024: A multilevel analysis PONE-D-25-06190R2 Dear Mr. Debessa, 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, Abdene Weya Kaso, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Gelgelo Wodessa ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329382.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Abdene Weya Kaso, Editor PONE-D-25-06190R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Debessa, 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 Mr. Abdene Weya Kaso Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329382.r006

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 .