Experimental investigation of shape-enhanced rotating cylinders with electric heaters and solar panels for augmented pyramid solar still performance

A. S. Abdullah; Mutabe Aljaghtham; Wissam H. Alawee; Z. M. Omara; Fadl A. Essa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330070

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 10, 2025
23 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - S. Shanmugan, Editor PONE-D-25-25343 Optimizing pyramid distiller performance with rotational corrugated cylinders, reflectors, and PCM-fan integration for enhanced freshwater production PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Omara, 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 07 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, S. Shanmugan, 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 3. 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. 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Z. M. Omara (Author) Reviewer #1 1) The authors should follow the journal guidelines 2) Highlights are missing: each bullet should be 85 characters with spaces. 3) Avoid abbreviation in the title and abstract (if possible). 4) A comprehensive proofreading must be conducted for the text of the manuscript by a technical native person. 5) The introduction section warrants a more comprehensive treatment, incorporating recent literature to enhance its contextualization and relevance. 6) In Literature, The author should brought many irrelevant external modifications as PCM, reflectors or nanomaterials are not considered as the design parameters rather all of them are external modification. The authors should include recent studies such as - Performance assessment of a novel solar distiller with a fountain-shaped basin design embedded with phase change materials enriched with copper oxide nano-additives: A detailed experimental investigation, Journal of Energy Storage, 2024 - Predicting the yield of stepped corrugated solar distiller using kernel-based machine learning models, Applied Thermal Engineering, 2023. - Optimal size of spherical rock salt balls as low-cost thermal storage materials for performance augmentation of hemispherical solar distillers: Experimental investigation and thermo-economic analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022. - Improving the thermo-economic performance of hemispherical solar distiller using copper oxide nanofluids and phase change materials: Experimental and theoretical investigation, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2022. 7) The distinctive aspects of novelty in the current study should be emphasized more prominently. 8) It is imperative to incorporate a detailed Table regarding the distiller geometrical details and properties of the utilized thermal energy storage material. 9) Elaborate on the performance degradation observed in the modifications of the study for a comprehensive analysis of patterns. 10) Strengthen the discussion section by delving into the mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena, thereby elevating the overall quality of the manuscript. 11) Extend the discussion to encompass water quality analyses of both seawater and distillate output, offering a more comprehensive perspective on the study's broader implications. 12) It is advisable to include the limitations of the study. Reviewer #2 Paper Title (Optimizing pyramid distiller performance with rotational corrugated cylinders, reflectors, and pcm-fan integration for enhanced freshwater production). The topic and novelty of the work is interesting and the topic aligns with the scope of Pols One Journal. I have some comments which I want the authors to work on before publishing it in the journal. 1- The title should be more descriptive. 2- The originality of this paper should be clarified in the introduction section. 3- Error analysis is mandatory for any experimental work. Please include. 4- The references do not follow the journal style. 5- Check the subscripts and superscripts through the entire context. 6- The manuscript's English has to be strengthened. The content is riddled with typos and syntactical flaws. 7- The rotating cylinders must by studied with wick materials 8- Used others type of cylinder surface such as half- barrel 9- What happens if the exterior mirrors are replaced with PV-cells to heat the water for the still? 10- Quantity of PCM material (in kgs) used in the Solar stills not specified. Also, properties of PCM and Ag-nano particles not specified. In addition, properties of PCM + Ag-nano particles together not specified. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No 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: 1) The authors should follow the journal guidelines 2) Highlights are missing: each bullet should be 85 characters with spaces. 3) Avoid abbreviation in the title and abstract (if possible). 4) A comprehensive proofreading must be conducted for the text of the manuscript by a technical native person. 5) The introduction section warrants a more comprehensive treatment, incorporating recent literature to enhance its contextualization and relevance. 6) In Literature, The author should brought many irrelevant external modifications as PCM, reflectors or nanomaterials are not considered as the design parameters rather all of them are external modification. The authors should include recent studies such as - Performance assessment of a novel solar distiller with a fountain-shaped basin design embedded with phase change materials enriched with copper oxide nano-additives: A detailed experimental investigation, Journal of Energy Storage, 2024 - Predicting the yield of stepped corrugated solar distiller using kernel-based machine learning models, Applied Thermal Engineering, 2023. - Optimal size of spherical rock salt balls as low-cost thermal storage materials for performance augmentation of hemispherical solar distillers: Experimental investigation and thermo-economic analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022. - Improving the thermo-economic performance of hemispherical solar distiller using copper oxide nanofluids and phase change materials: Experimental and theoretical investigation, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2022. 7) The distinctive aspects of novelty in the current study should be emphasized more prominently. 8) It is imperative to incorporate a detailed Table regarding the distiller geometrical details and properties of the utilized thermal energy storage material. 9) Elaborate on the performance degradation observed in the modifications of the study for a comprehensive analysis of patterns. 10) Strengthen the discussion section by delving into the mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena, thereby elevating the overall quality of the manuscript. 11) Extend the discussion to encompass water quality analyses of both seawater and distillate output, offering a more comprehensive perspective on the study's broader implications. 12) It is advisable to include the limitations of the study. Reviewer #2: Paper Title (Optimizing pyramid distiller performance with rotational corrugated cylinders, reflectors, and pcm-fan integration for enhanced freshwater production). The topic and novelty of the work is interesting and the topic aligns with the scope of Pols One Journal. I have some comments which I want the authors to work on before publishing it in the journal. 1- The title should be more descriptive. 2- The originality of this paper should be clarified in the introduction section. 3- Error analysis is mandatory for any experimental work. Please include. 4- The references do not follow the journal style. 5- Check the subscripts and superscripts through the entire context. 6- The manuscript's English has to be strengthened. The content is riddled with typos and syntactical flaws. 7- The rotating cylinders must by studied with wick materials 8- Used others type of cylinder surface such as half- barrel 9- What happens if the exterior mirrors are replaced with PV-cells to heat the water for the still? 10- Quantity of PCM material (in kgs) used in the Solar stills not specified. Also, properties of PCM and Ag-nano particles not specified. In addition, properties of PCM + Ag-nano particles together not specified. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330070.r001
Revision 1
9 Jul 2025 Author Response Responses to Reviewers’ comments PONE-D-25-25343 Optimizing pyramid distiller performance with rotational corrugated cylinders, reflectors, and PCM-fan integration for enhanced freshwater production Dear Editor of PLOS One Journal. Wissam H. Alawee: was work hard on revised manuscript, so we hope that the Editor will approve of adding his to this work. Reviewer #1 Q1) The authors should follow the journal guidelines A1: Thanks for the comment. The journal guidelines are followed as required by the respected reviewer. Q2) Highlights are missing: each bullet should be 85 characters with spaces. A2: Thanks for the comment. The highlights are revised to be as suggested. Kindly refer to the revised Highlights. Q3) Avoid abbreviation in the title and abstract (if possible). A3: Thanks for the comment. The abbreviations are avoided as required. Q4) A comprehensive proofreading must be conducted for the text of the manuscript by a technical native person. A4: Thanks for the comment. The manuscript is well revised to polish the language and avoid mistakes and errors as possible. Q5) The introduction section wants a more comprehensive treatment, incorporating recent literature to enhance its contextualization and relevance. A5: Thanks for the comment. The introduction section is revised and edited as required by the respected reviewer. Q6) In Literature, the author should brought many irrelevant external modifications as PCM, reflectors or nanomaterials are not considered as the design parameters rather all of them are external modification. The authors should include recent studies such as  Performance assessment of a novel solar distiller with a fountain-shaped basin design embedded with phase change materials enriched with copper oxide nano-additives: A detailed experimental investigation, Journal of Energy Storage, 2024  Predicting the yield of stepped corrugated solar distiller using kernel-based machine learning models, Applied Thermal Engineering, 2023.  Optimal size of spherical rock salt balls as low-cost thermal storage materials for performance augmentation of hemispherical solar distillers: Experimental investigation and thermo-economic analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022.  Improving the thermo-economic performance of hemispherical solar distiller using copper oxide nanofluids and phase change materials: Experimental and theoretical investigation, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2022. A6: Thanks for the comment. The given recent studies are used to boost the literature. Q7) The distinctive aspects of novelty in the current study should be emphasized more prominently. A7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In response to comment Q7, we have revised the manuscript to more prominently highlight the novel aspects of our study, particularly the innovative use of rotating cylinders with corrugated surfaces, the discovery of distinct optimal rotational speeds, and the integration of advanced modifications such as PCM-Ag nanocomposites and vapor extraction. These contributions represent significant departures from conventional PSS designs and have been explicitly emphasized in the revised text (see last Section of Introduction). We hope these clarifications better underscore the originality and impact of our work. Q8) It is imperative to incorporate a detailed Table regarding the distiller geometrical details and properties of the utilized thermal energy storage material. A8: Thanks for the valuable comment. These data are added in tables as required. Kindly refer to Tables 1 and 2 under section 2.1. Q9) Elaborate on the performance degradation observed in the modifications of the study for a comprehensive analysis of patterns. A9: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. In response to Q9, we have expanded the discussion on performance degradation mechanisms to include a detailed analysis of PSS performance under the testing conditions. These insights provide a clearer understanding of the limitations and optimization pathways for the proposed modifications. Kindly refer to section 3. Q10) Strengthen the discussion section by delving into the mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena, thereby elevating the overall quality of the manuscript. A10: Thanks for the comment. The results and discussion section is strengthened as suggested. Kindly refer to section 3. Q11) Extend the discussion to encompass water quality analyses of both seawater and distillate output, offering a more comprehensive perspective on the study's broader implications. A11: Thanks for the comment. The manuscript is edited to have it under a section 3.7. 3.7 Water quality analysis before and after distillation The pH and total dissolved solids (TDS) of the feed water were analyzed before and after the desalination process. The results showed a decrease in pH from 9.5 (pre-distillation) to 7.4 (post-distillation), indicating a shift from alkaline to near-neutral conditions. Similarly, the TDS levels dropped significantly from 1265 mg/L (pre-distillation) to 87 mg/L (post-distillation), demonstrating effective salt removal. These findings confirm that the distilled water meets the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines [104] for acceptable drinking water quality. Q12) It is advisable to include the limitations of the study. A12: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to elaborate on limitations. A dedicated paragraph at the end of the conclusion section now addresses, aligning with the journal’s emphasis on practical applicability. We believe this addition provides a more balanced perspective. Reviewer #2 Q1- The title should be more descriptive. A1: Thanks for the comment. The title is edited to be more descriptive as required. Q2- The originality of this paper should be clarified in the introduction section. A2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In response to comment Q2, we have revised the manuscript to more prominently highlight the novel aspects of our study, particularly the innovative use of rotating cylinders with corrugated surfaces, the discovery of distinct optimal rotational speeds, and the integration of advanced modifications such as PCM-Ag nanocomposites and vapor extraction. These contributions represent significant departures from conventional PSS designs and have been explicitly emphasized in the revised text (see last Section of Introduction). We hope these clarifications better underscore the originality and impact of our work. Q3- Error analysis is mandatory for any experimental work. Please include. A3: Thanks for the comment. The error analysis is included as required in the revised version of the manuscript. Kindly refer to section 2.3. Q4- The references do not follow the journal style. A4: Thanks for the comment. The reference style is edited to follow the journal style. Q5- Check the subscripts and superscripts through the entire context. A5: Thanks for the comment. The subscripts and superscripts are revised through the entire context of the manuscript. Q6- The manuscript's English has to be strengthened. The content is riddled with typos and syntactical flaws. A6: The language is well revised to be strengthened as required. Q7- The rotating cylinders must be studied with wick materials A7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In response to comment Q7, we have studied the rotating cylinders with wick materials. Kindly refer to section 3.3. Q8- Used others type of cylinder surface such as half- barrel. A8: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In this investigation, two-cylinder configurations were employed: flat and corrugated. The corrugated design was prioritized due to its manufacturing feasibility compared to more complex geometries. While a half-barrel cylinder could offer a larger heat transfer surface area, its fabrication presents significant challenges, making it less practical for the current scope. Future work will explore the performance of puffin and half-barrel cylinders, with detailed analysis to be included in subsequent research. Kindly refer to the last of the conclusions section (future work). Q9- What happens if the exterior mirrors are replaced with PV-cells to heat the water for the still? A9: Thanks for the comment. As the reviewer required, the effect of raising the temperature of water of RCCPSS using heaters and PV system in added in the revised manuscript. Kindly refer to section 3.5. Q10- Quantity of PCM material (in kgs) used in the Solar stills not specified. Also, properties of PCM and Ag-nano particles not specified. In addition, properties of PCM + Ag-nano particles together not specified. A10: Thanks for the comment. The quantity of PCM material used in solar stills is added as required. In addition, the properties of PCM with and without nanomaterials are added in the revised version. Kindly refer to section 2.1 and Table 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Pols One.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330070.r002
27 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - S. Shanmugan, Editor Experimental Investigation of Shape-Enhanced Rotating Cylinders with Electric Heaters and Solar Panels for Augmented Pyramid Solar Still Performance PONE-D-25-25343R1 Dear Dr. Z. M. Omara, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support. 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, S. Shanmugan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Accept 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 further comments are required. It can be accepted for publication in the journal Reviewer #2: The researcher has responded to all questions satisfactorily, there are no further comments, and the research is accepted. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330070.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - S. Shanmugan, Editor PONE-D-25-25343R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Omara, 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. S. Shanmugan Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330070.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 .