Tunable single- and dual-wavelength lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LuGdAG crystal

Haotian Huang; Yuzhao Li; Nguyen Tuan Anh; Yanfei Lü; Jing Xia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333387

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 16, 2025
25 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Rajesh Sharma, Editor Dear Dr. Xia, 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 Sep 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. 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, Rajesh Sharma 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62175209 and 62241506).]. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62175209 and 62241506).] We note that you have provided funding information that is not 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: [This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62175209 and 62241506).]. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** Reviewer #1: Comments The authors report a laser output at 1.4 μm is achieved in the Nd:LuGdAG crystal, corresponding maximum output power is 3.64 W with the slope efficiency of 23.7%. By tuning the angle of the Lyot filter, three distinct lasing wavelengths at 1414, 1426 and 1437 nm laser wavelengths were obtained. Besides, three pairs of dual-wavelength lasers operating at 1414 and 1426 nm, 1414 and 1437 nm, 1426 and 1437 nm were also achieved, respectively. The manuscript can be accepted for publication after some revisions. The suggestions are as follows: 1. What is the output wavelength and output power of Nd:LuGdAG laser without Lyot filter inserted into the resonant cavity? 2. What are the losses of the coupled lenses (L1 and L2)? 3. “The Nd:LGAG lasers at 1.1 μm on the 4F3/2→4I11/2 [28], 0.9 μm on the 4F3/2→4I9/2 [29] and 1.3 μm on the 4F3/2→4I13/2 [30] transitions have been reported. To the best of our knowledge, CW lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LGAG have not been studied until now.” This sentence should be deleted. This sentence should be deleted because it is repetitive with the following sentence. 4. The author should provide the measurement method of the beam quality factor. 5. What does the parameter “Θ” in Eq. 3 represent? It is advisable for authors to express clearly it in the manuscript. Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Huang et al. reports on a tunable single- and dual-wavelength lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LuGdAG crystal. The authors demonstrate the wavelength tunability of the output and report on the maximum output power of 3.64 W, corresponding to 23.7% optical efficiency. In addition, three pairs of dual-wavelength lasers operating at 1.4 μm were also achieved. The results are novel, and the manuscript is well-written. The details of the experiment are provided adequately. I recommend the publication of the manuscript after the following corrections: 1. How did the author measure the output power at these close dual wavelengths separately? 2. In the introduction: “The Nd:LGAG lasers at 1.1 μm on the 4F3/2→4I11/2 [28], 0.9 μm on the 4F3/2→4I9/2 [29] and 1.3 μm on the 4F3/2→4I13/2 [30] transitions have been reported. To the best of our knowledge, CW lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LGAG have not been studied until now. While The Nd:LGAG lasers at 1.1 [28], 0.9 [29] and 1.3 μm [30] have been implemented successfully in prior studies, systematic research on CW laser generation at 1.4 μm in the Nd:LGAG has not been reported until now.” These two sentences are repetitive. One of them should be deleted. 3. In the experimental setup: “A Nd:LGAG (1.0 at.% doping, 6 mm length) functioned as the active medium…” To my knowledge, the output parameters of the diode-pumped laser are related to the length and doping concentration of the laser crystal. Generally, the doping concentration of the gain medium in pure three-level lasers is very low to reduce thermal effects and reabsorption. How is the doping concentration of 1.0 at. % chosen? 4. What is the cavity mode radius? How is it determined, under considering the thermal lens effect? 5. How to measure the beam quality factor? Reviewer #3: This paper presents a study on diode-pumped tunable single- and dual-wavelength laser operation in Nd:LGAG crystal. The research achieve the single- and dual-wavelength laser operation near the 1.4 μm spectral region in Nd:LGAG crystal, it has certain innovation and value. The paper can better reflect the quality and significance of the research with appropriate supplements and improvements. 1. In Page 3” The cavity output coupler was a concave mirror (M2) with a radius of curvature of –200 mm, a transmittance (Toc) of 3.5% at 1410-1440 nm, and AR at 1060-1350 nm. Two other couplers (Toc = 3.5% and = 5.0%) were also carried out, with the M2 demonstrated the optimal output performance.” The other couplers of 3.5% is contradictory to the previous. And it is suggested to show the output powers at different transmittance. 2. It is excellent that the M2 factors of the 1414, 1426 and 1437 nm wavelengths were 1.16, 1.12 and 1.25 at the maximum output powers. Suggested add the test figure. Reviewer #4: The work by Huang et al. investigated the diode-pumped tunable single- and dual-wavelength (DW) laser operation near 1.4 μm spectral region in Nd:LuGdAG (Nd:LGAG) crystal. The work may be of some significance for the development of solid-state lasers. But there remain many issues. I can’t recommend the acceptance till all my concerns below are well responded: 1.In the Introduction section, Fig. 1 displayed the emission spectrum of the Nd:LGAG in 1250 -1500 nm. Is it the result of the manuscript or the result of other literatures? And why do the authors include pictures in the Introduction section? 2.Fig. 5 displayed the laser spectra of the three single-wavelength lasers. Please provide the corresponding spectra at different pump powers. 3.The authors stated “Their corresponding M2 factors were 1.12 and 1.15, 1.18 and 1.24 and 1.22 and 1.27, respectively, and their power stabilities were about 2.5 and 2.9%, 2.8 and 3.8% and 3.5 and 4.2%, respectively”. The authors should prove the M2 factors and power stabilities by providing the corresponding pictures. 4.The authors can compare the performance of different lasers at near 1.4 μm to visually show the advantages of this work. 5.The English is casual at some places. Please check and revise the manuscript thoroughly and carefully. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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.0333387.r001
Revision 1
15 Aug 2025 Author Response Comments Reviewer #1: The authors report a laser output at 1.4 μm is achieved in the Nd:LuGdAG crystal, corresponding maximum output power is 3.64 W with the slope efficiency of 23.7%. By tuning the angle of the Lyot filter, three distinct lasing wavelengths at 1414, 1426 and 1437 nm laser wavelengths were obtained. Besides, three pairs of dual-wavelength lasers operating at 1414 and 1426 nm, 1414 and 1437 nm, 1426 and 1437 nm were also achieved, respectively. The manuscript can be accepted for publication after some revisions. The suggestions are as follows: 1. What is the output wavelength and output power of Nd:LuGdAG laser without Lyot filter inserted into the resonant cavity? Response: In fact, the Lyot filter has no loss to the operating wavelength (because the transmittance is 100% at the operating wavelength), it only suppresses other wavelengths besides the operating wavelength. 2. What are the losses of the coupled lenses (L1 and L2)? Response: Two identical coupling lenses (L1 and L2) were antireflection coated at 808 nm. The total transmittance the lenses is greater than 98%, so we ignore the loss of the lenses. We describe the coupling efficiency of the two lenses in the revised version. 3. “The Nd:LGAG lasers at 1.1 μm on the 4F3/2→4I11/2 [28], 0.9 μm on the 4F3/2→4I9/2 [29] and 1.3 μm on the 4F3/2→4I13/2 [30] transitions have been reported. To the best of our knowledge, CW lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LGAG have not been studied until now.” This sentence should be deleted. This sentence should be deleted because it is repetitive with the following sentence. Response: We have deleted this repetitive sentence in the revised version. 4. The author should provide the measurement method of the beam quality factor. Response: We have added the measurement method for beam quality factor in the revised version. 5. What does the parameter “Θ” in Eq. 3 represent? It is advisable for authors to express clearly it in the manuscript. Response: Θ is the Heaviside step function, and we have explained it in the revised version. Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Huang et al. reports on a tunable single- and dual-wavelength lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LuGdAG crystal. The authors demonstrate the wavelength tunability of the output and report on the maximum output power of 3.64 W, corresponding to 23.7% optical efficiency. In addition, three pairs of dual-wavelength lasers operating at 1.4 μm were also achieved. The results are novel, and the manuscript is well-written. The details of the experiment are provided adequately. I recommend the publication of the manuscript after the following corrections: 1. How did the author measure the output power at these close dual wavelengths separately? Response: The 1.4 μm laser beam was separated using the flexible wavelength selector, and the output power of each wavelength was measured respectively. 2. In the introduction: “The Nd:LGAG lasers at 1.1 μm on the 4F3/2→4I11/2 [28], 0.9 μm on the 4F3/2→4I9/2 [29] and 1.3 μm on the 4F3/2→4I13/2 [30] transitions have been reported. To the best of our knowledge, CW lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LGAG have not been studied until now. While The Nd:LGAG lasers at 1.1 [28], 0.9 [29] and 1.3 μm [30] have been implemented successfully in prior studies, systematic research on CW laser generation at 1.4 μm in the Nd:LGAG has not been reported until now.” These two sentences are repetitive. One of them should be deleted. Response: We have deleted this repetitive sentence in the revised version. 3. In the experimental setup: “A Nd:LGAG (1.0 at.% doping, 6 mm length) functioned as the active medium…” To my knowledge, the output parameters of the diode-pumped laser are related to the length and doping concentration of the laser crystal. Generally, the doping concentration of the gain medium in pure three-level lasers is very low to reduce thermal effects and reabsorption. How is the doping concentration of 1.0 at. % chosen? Response: Usually, low doping reduces the thermal effect of crystals. However, the absorption efficiency of Nd:LGAG crystals is relatively low. Therefore, while ensuring high absorption efficiency, the doping concentration should be reduced as much as possible. We used 1.0% doping and a 6 mm long Nd:LGAG crystal, but the absorption efficiency of the crystal was 93.5%. 4. What is the cavity mode radius? How is it determined, under considering the thermal lens effect? Response: The laser spot radius in the active medium was about 190 μm, which is calculated based on the ABCD matrix considering the crystal thermal lens. 5. How to measure the beam quality factor? Response: We measured the M2 factor using the knife-edge technique. We have added it in the revised version. Reviewer #3: This paper presents a study on diode-pumped tunable single- and dual-wavelength laser operation in Nd:LGAG crystal. The research achieve the single- and dual-wavelength laser operation near the 1.4 μm spectral region in Nd:LGAG crystal, it has certain innovation and value. The paper can better reflect the quality and significance of the research with appropriate supplements and improvements. Response: Thank you for your constructive comments on this study. There is no doubt that these professional suggestions provide important directions for improving the quality of papers. 1. In Page 3” The cavity output coupler was a concave mirror (M2) with a radius of curvature of –200 mm, a transmittance (Toc) of 3.5% at 1410-1440 nm, and AR at 1060-1350 nm. Two other couplers (Toc = 3.5% and = 5.0%) were also carried out, with the M2 demonstrated the optimal output performance.” The other couplers of 3.5% is contradictory to the previous. And it is suggested to show the output powers at different transmittance. Response: Toc = 3.5% and = 5.0% should be Toc = 2.0% and = 5.0% respectively. We have corrected it in the revised version. To more clearly compare the slope efficiency of different emission wavelengths, we present the test results of three wavelengths in the same graph. Considering that displaying three curves with different transmittance simultaneously would lead to overly dense graphical information, we have supplemented the slope efficiency and threshold data of the other two wavelengths in the "Results and Discussion" section to ensure the complete presentation of the experimental data. This processing approach not only maintains the simplicity of the illustration but also fully presents all the key experimental data. 2. It is excellent that the M2 factors of the 1414, 1426 and 1437 nm wavelengths were 1.16, 1.12 and 1.25 at the maximum output powers. Suggested add the test figure. Response: We measured the M2 factor using the knife-edge technique. The value of the M2 factor is calculated by the measured beam waist radius and beam divergence angle. We have supplemented the measurement method and corresponding measured data for beam quality in the revised version. Reviewer #4: The work by Huang et al. investigated the diode-pumped tunable single- and dual-wavelength (DW) laser operation near 1.4 μm spectral region in Nd:LuGdAG (Nd:LGAG) crystal. The work may be of some significance for the development of solid-state lasers. But there remain many issues. I can’t recommend the acceptance till all my concerns below are well responded: Response: We thank you very much for the kind consideration and constructive comments. All your comments are very professional, pertinent and kind, and will be of great help to the improvement of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript and provided the point-by-point response below in blue. The changes in the revised manuscript have been highlighted. 1. In the Introduction section, Fig. 1 displayed the emission spectrum of the Nd:LGAG in 1250 -1500 nm. Is it the result of the manuscript or the result of other literatures? And why do the authors include pictures in the Introduction section? Response: The data in Figure 1 is calculated through Füchtbauer-Ladenburg formula. Figure 1 is introduced in the introduction section to show the emission peak of the Nd:LGAG crystal in the 1410-1440 nm band. The results of this spectral characteristic analysis naturally extend to the key working bands that this study intends to achieve. 2. Fig. 5 displayed the laser spectra of the three single-wavelength lasers. Please provide the corresponding spectra at different pump powers. Response: In fact, the emission wavelength of the crystal does not drift with the change of pump power, so the emission spectrum is the same at any pump power. 3. The authors stated “Their corresponding M2 factors were 1.12 and 1.15, 1.18 and 1.24 and 1.22 and 1.27, respectively, and their power stabilities were about 2.5 and 2.9%, 2.8 and 3.8% and 3.5 and 4.2%, respectively”. The authors should prove the M2 factors and power stabilities by providing the corresponding pictures. Response: We measured the M2 factor using the knife-edge technique. The value of the M2 factor is calculated by the measured beam waist radius and beam divergence angle. We have supplemented the corresponding measured data (Insets (a-c) of Fig.6) for beam quality in the revised version. In addition, we have also supplemented the measured pictures of the power stability in the revised version (Fig.6). 4. The authors can compare the performance of different lasers at near 1.4 μm to visually show the advantages of this work. Response: This is a very good suggestion. We have added a comparison with a 1.4 μm wavelength laser at the end of the results and discussion. This can indeed visually demonstrate the advantages of this work. 5. The English is casual at some places. Please check and revise the manuscript thoroughly and carefully. Response: We have conducted a comprehensive review and optimization of the English expression throughout the text to ensure that the language is smooth and natural, and the expression is accurate and standardized. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-26624-Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333387.r002
15 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Rajesh Sharma, Editor Tunable single- and dual-wavelength lasers around 1.4 μm in Nd:LuGdAG crystal PONE-D-25-26624R1 Dear Dr. Xia, 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, Rajesh Sharma Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewer #1: Reviewer #2: Reviewer #4: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** Reviewer #1: The authors have fully resolved all the issues I raised in their revision. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication in its current form. Reviewer #2: The queries raised have been addressed satisfactorily by the authors, and I can recommend the publication of this article. Reviewer #4: In the manuscript, the author has made revisions according to my review comments, and the paper can be accepted. ****** 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 Reviewer #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333387.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rajesh Sharma, Editor PONE-D-25-26624R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xia, 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. Rajesh Sharma Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333387.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 .